Skiing, Skydiving and Cosmetic Surgery: Exploring the Bounds of Risk-Taking in Halacha

(9) But take utmost care and watch yourselves scrupulously, so that you do not forget the things that you saw with your own eyes and so that they do not fade from your mind as long as you live. And make them known to your children and to your children’s children: (10) The day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when the LORD said to Me, “Gather the people to Me that I may let them hear My words, in order that they may learn to revere Me as long as they live on earth, and may so teach their children.” ... (15) For your own sake, therefore, be most careful—since you saw no shape when the LORD your God spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire— (16) not to act wickedly and make for yourselves a sculptured image in any likeness whatever: the form of a man or a woman, ...

The Sages taught: There was a related incident, involving a particular pious man who was praying while traveling along his path when an officer [hegmon] came and greeted him. The pious man did not pause from his prayer and did not respond with a greeting. The officer waited for him until he finished his prayer. After he finished his prayer, the officer said to him: You good for nothing. You endangered yourself; I could have killed you. Isn’t it written in your Torah: “Take utmost care and guard yourself diligently” (Deuteronomy 4:9)? And it is also written: “Take therefore good heed unto yourselves” (Deuteronomy 4:15)? Why did you ignore the danger to your life? When I greeted you, why did you not respond with a greeting? Were I to sever your head with a sword, who would hold me accountable for your spilled blood?

(5) You shall keep My laws and My rules, by the pursuit of which man shall live: I am the LORD. (6) None of you shall come near anyone of his own flesh to uncover nakedness: I am the LORD.

Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says that it is stated: “For it is sacred to you” (Exodus 31:14). This implies that Shabbat is given into your hands, and you are not given to it to die on account of Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said: It is stated: “And the children of Israel shall keep Shabbat, to observe Shabbat” (Exodus 31:16).The Torah said: Desecrate one Shabbat on his behalf so he will observe many Shabbatot. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If I would have been there among those Sages who debated this question, I would have said that my proof is preferable to theirs, as it states: “You shall keep My statutes and My ordinances, which a person shall do and live by them” (Leviticus 18:5), and not that he should die by them. In all circumstances, one must take care not to die as a result of fulfilling the mitzvot. Rava commented on this: All of these arguments have refutations except for that of Shmuel, which has no refutation.

(14) R. Aha said in the name of R. Akiva. Behold, it says: “If a thief is found tunneling in…” Is the house’s owner certain or uncertain? You must say he is uncertain. If they kill a person to save a life in a case of uncertainty, it is logical that they should push off the Sabbath, in order to save a life in a case of uncertainty. Behold, the commandments were only given to Israel that they might live by them, as it is written “Which a man shall perform and live by them” - he shall live by them, and not die by them. Nothing takes precedence over saving a life, save idolatry, sexual sins, and murder. In which circumstances are these things said? When it is not a time of persecution. But, when it is a time of persecution, even when it comes to the smallest of small commandments, a person should die for it, as it is written: “Do not profane my holy name” (Leviticus 22) and “the Lord made everything for his own sake” (Proverbs 16).

(6) One who shouts at his fellow, he gives him a sela (twenty zuz). ... (And) there was an incident of someone uncovering the head of a woman in the street. She came before Rabbi Akiva, and he required him to give her four hundred zuz. He said to him, "Rabbi, give me time." So he gave him time. [The man] watched her stand at the entrance of her courtyard, broke a pitcher in front of her, and in it was issar [eight prutot] of oil. She uncovered her head and scooped [the oil], and rubbed her hands on her head. He placed witnesses against her and he came before Rabbi Akiva. He said to him, "Rabbi, to her I gave four hundred zuz?!" He replied, "You haven't said anything." One who injures himself, even though he is not permitted, he is exempt. Others who wound him are liable. And one who cuts his own shoots, even though he is not permitted, he is exempt. Others who cut his shoots are liable.

The mishna relates that the man then waited for her until she was standing by the opening of her courtyard, and caused her to uncover her own head. Rabbi Akiva said that although she caused injury to herself, which is not permitted, this does not negate the man’s requirement to pay her compensation. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva said to him: You plunged into mighty waters and you raised nothing more than worthless earthenware in your hand, since it is permitted for a person to injure himself. The Gemara answers: Rava said: It is not difficult. Here, it refers to actual physical injury, while there it is stated with regard to causing humiliation to oneself. But the ruling of Rabbi Akiva in the mishna is stated with regard to causing humiliation,

and it teaches: one who injures himself, although it is not permitted for him to do so, he is nevertheless exempt from any sort of penalty, indicating that the prohibition is in effect even with regard to humiliation. The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Akiva said to the man: It is not necessary to say with regard to humiliation, where it is permitted for a person to humiliate himself, that someone else who humiliated him is liable. But even with regard to injury, where it is not permitted for a person to injure himself, others who injured him are liable. And is a person not permitted to injure himself? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One might have thought that if one takes an oath to do evil to himself and did not do evil he will be exempt from bringing an offering for having transgressed this oath. Therefore, the verse states: “Or if anyone swear clearly with his lips to do evil or to do good” (Leviticus 5:4), just as taking an oath to do good is referring to an optional activity, so too, taking an oath to do evil is referring to an optional activity. I therefore include the person who takes an oath to do evil to himself and did not do evil. It is clear from this baraita that doing evil to oneself is permitted. Shmuel says: The ruling of the baraita is stated with regard to one who takes an oath stating: I will sit in observance of a fast, which it is permitted to do. Then in the corresponding situation in the context of doing evil to others, the baraita must also then be referring to one who takes an oath to have others sit in observance of a fast. Can one compel others to sit in observance of a fast? Yes; where he confined them in a room. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: What is considered taking an oath to do evil to others? It is considered such if one takes an oath stating: I will strike so-and-so and I will injure his brain. Rather, it is a dispute between tanna’im, as there is a tanna who says that it is not permitted for a person to injure himself, and there is a tanna who says that it is permitted for a person to injure himself. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that you heard that says: It is not permitted for a person to injure himself? If we say that it is this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And surely your blood of your souls will I require” (Genesis 9:5), and Rabbi Elazar says: From the hand of your souls, i.e., from yourself, will I require your blood, meaning one is liable even for taking his own life. But perhaps killing is different. Rather, it is this tanna, as it is taught: One may rend garments in anguish over one who died, and it is not considered of the ways of the Amorites, but a Jewish custom. Rabbi Elazar says: I heard that one who rends his garments excessively over one who died is flogged for having transgressed the prohibition of: Do not destroy (see Deuteronomy 20:19). And all the more so one who injures his body in anguish transgresses this prohibition. But perhaps garments are different, in that tearing them is a loss that is irreversible, like that practice of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who would refer to his garments as: My honor, and like that practice of Rav Ḥisda, who, when he would walk among thorns and shrubs, would raise his clothing despite the fact that his skin would get scratched by the thorns. He said in explanation of his actions: This flesh will heal if scratched, but that garment will not heal if torn. Rather, it is this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished said: What is the meaning when the verse states with regard to a nazirite: “And he shall atone for him for sinning by the soul” (Numbers 6:11)? And with which soul did this person sin? Rather, in that he afflicted himself by abstaining from wine for causing his body to suffer. And are these matters not inferred a fortiori: And just as this person who afflicted himself by abstaining only from wine is nevertheless called a sinner, one who afflicts himself by abstaining from everything, through fasting or other acts of mortification, all the more so is he described as a sinner? Consequently, Rabbi Elazar HaKappar holds that one may not harm himself in any manner. ...

Mar Zutra holds in accordance with that which was taught in a baraita: A person may scrape off dried excrement crusts and scabs of a wound that are on his flesh because of the pain that they are causing him. However, if he does so in order to clean and beautify himself, it is prohibited.

Because of his pain: And if there is no other pain than the fact that he is embarrassed to walk amongst others, it is permitted, because there is no greater pain than this.

Rather, it is a tannaitic dispute, as we learnt in a baraisa: And if you will say - and what is the current hypothesis? Do we really need a proof that one who tears clothing violates the prohibition of "do not destroy"? Ri answers that the proof is only that it is prohibited to injure even if there is some benefit, similar to the woman who put the oil in her hair (in order to save the oil), and it is also so with respect to "and surely, your blood" that he killed himself for something he feared, as well as the one who tore over a death, this is also for the purpose of fulfilling a need.

... Rav Pappa said: At the entrance to the stores, during a time of prosperity, brothers and loved ones abound. However, at the gate of disgrace, during a time of loss and poverty, he has no brothers and no loved ones; everyone abandons him. And where are men examined? Reish Lakish said: When they are crossing a bridge. Only when they are crossing a bridge and at no other time? Rather, say: Anything like a bridge, any place where danger is commonplace. Rav would not cross a river in a ferry in which a gentile sat. He said to himself: Perhaps a judgment will be reckoned with him, and I will be caught together with him when he is punished. Whereas, Shmuel would only cross in a ferry if there was a gentile in it. He said: Satan does not have dominion over two nations. Rabbi Yannai would examine the ferry and cross. Rabbi Yannai acted in accordance with his reasoning stated elsewhere, as he said: A person should never stand in a place of danger saying that they on High will perform a miracle for him, lest in the end they do not perform a miracle for him. And, moreover, even if they do perform a miracle for him, they will deduct it from his merits. Rabbi Ḥanin said: What is the verse that alludes to this? When Jacob said: “I am not worthy of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which You have shown unto Your servant” (Genesis 32:11).

(17) If a person took an oath to harm himself, e.g., he took an oath to inflict injury upon himself, the oath takes effect even though he is not allowed to do so. If he does not harm himself, he is liable for [not fulfilling] a sh'vuat bitui. If he took an oath to help others with regard to a matter with which he could help them, e.g., to speak to the ruling authorities or to show him honor, the oath takes effect. If he transgresses and does not carry out [his promise], he is liable for [not fulfilling] a sh'vuat bitui.

(1) A man is forbidden to injure himself or another. Not only one who inflicts a wound, but anyone who strikes a worthy Jew, whether an adult or a minor, whether a man or a woman, (in a degrading/belligerent manner) breaks a prohibitive law, as it is written: "He must not lash him excessively" (Deuteronomy 25:3). If the Torah has warned against excess in lashing an offender, how much more should this apply to striking an innocent man.

(1) The Torah commands that one should make a parapet for his roof, as it is written: "You shall make a parapet for your roof" (Deuteronomy 22:8). This law applies only to a dwelling house; but a storehouse, a stable, or the like, does not require it. Any house less than four square cubits is exempt from the need of a parapet.

(4) There is no difference between a roof or anything else that is dangerous and likely to cause death to a person who might stumble. If, for instance, one has a well or a pit in his courtyard — — he must build an enclosing ring ten handbreadths high, or put a cover over it, so that a person should not fall into it and die. So too, any obstruction that is a danger to life must be removed as a matter of positive duty and extremely necessary caution.

(5) The sages have prohibited many things because they are dangerous to life. If anyone disregards them and says : "What claim have others on me if I risk my own life?" or: "I do not mind this," he should be lashed for disobedience.

(6) The rules are: A person must never put his mouth to a pipe spouting water and drink; he must not drink from rivers or ponds at night, for fear that he might swallow a leech without seeing; he must not drink uncovered water, for fear that a snake or any other reptile drank it, and he might die.

(8) and any other obstacle that is life-threatening, there is a positive commandment to remove it, to guard against it and to be meticulously careful about it, as it says (Deut. 22:8) "Beware and guard your soul", and if one did not remove them and left the obstacles which can lead to danger, he has nullified a positive commandment and violated (the commandment of) "and you shall not place blood in your house" (Leviticus. 19-16).

(10) Anyone who violates these, and similar things, and says "I am risking myself and what do others have on me, or I do not care", will be given :lashes of rebellion (i.e. Rabbinically mandated lashes) and one who is protective from these will have a good blessing on him.

(1) Seeing that the maintenance of the body in a healthy and sound condition is a God-chosen way, for, lo, it is impossible that one should understand or know aught of the divine knowledge concerning the Creator when he is sick, it is necessary for man to distance himself from things which destroy the body, and accustom himself in things which are healthful and life-imparting. These are: never shall man partake food save when hungry, nor drink save when thirsty; he shall not defer elimination even one minute, but the moment he feels the need to evacuate urine or feces he must rise immediately.

(3) If his father has a thorn stuck (in his skin, needing removal), he should not remove it, perhaps he (the son) will wound him, and similarly, if he is a blood-letter or doctor, he should not let blood for his father, and should not cut off a limb, even though he intends to do this for medical reasons. Rama - When do this apply, when this is no one else to do it, but if there is no one else, and the father is in pain, he may let blood or cut off the limb, as long as he (the father) allows him.

... § The Gemara analyzes a situation in which one may receive medical attention from gentiles. Rava says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say that it was Rav Ḥisda who says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If there is uncertainty as to whether a patient will live through his ailment or die from it, the patient may not be treated by gentile doctors, due to the concern that a gentile doctor may kill him. But if it is certain that he will die, the patient is treated by them. The Gemara challenges: Even if it is certain that the patient will die, nevertheless, there is value in temporal life.The Gemara explains: We are not concerned with the value of temporal life when there is a possibility of permanent recovery, and therefore it is preferable to receive medical attention from a gentile despite the risk involved. And from where do you say that we are not concerned with the value of temporal life? As it is written with regard to the discussion held by four lepers left outside a besieged city: “If we say: We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there; and if we sit still here, we also die. Now therefore come, and let us fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die” (II Kings 7:4). The starving lepers decided to risk premature death rather than waiting to die of starvation. But isn’t there temporal life? Rather, is it not apparent that we are not concerned with the value of temporal life?

(3) Someone on whom a collapse [as of a building] has fallen, and it is doubtful whether he is alive or dead, doubtful whether he is there or not, and even if he is there it is doubtful whether he is Jewish or and idolater, they remove the collapse for him even though there are several doubts.

(4) Even if they found him [in extremis], that he can only live for a short while, they remove the collapse and check until his nose, and if they do not sense at his nose life then he is definitely dead - it does not matter whether they reached his head or his feet first.

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, learn from here that on a cloudy day or on a day that a south wind [shuta] blows, we may neither circumcise nor let blood [mesokhrinan], owing to the danger involved. But nowadays, when many are accustomed to ignoring these safeguards, the verse “The Lord preserves the simple” (Psalms 116:6) is applied, and it is assumed that they will come to no harm.

... Rav Beivai taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman: Three women may engage in relations with a contraceptive resorbent, (despite the fact that this practice is generally prohibited). A minor, a woman who is already pregnant, and a nursing woman. A minor lest she become pregnant and perhaps die; a pregnant woman, lest she be impregnated a second time and her previous fetus becomes deformed into the shape of a sandal fish by being squashed by the pressure of the second fetus. A nursing woman, lest she become pregnant and she will wean her son too early, and he will die. And Who is considered a minor? It is a girl from the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. If she was younger than this or older than this, she may go ahead and engage in relations in her usual manner. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Both this one and that one, i.e., in all these cases, she may go ahead and engage in relations in her usual manner, and Heaven will have mercy upon her and prevent any mishap, since it is stated: “The Lord preserves the simple” (Psalms 116:2).

... And Shmuel said: The times for bloodletting are the first day of the week, the fourth day of the week and Shabbat eve. However, on the second and the fifth days of the week, no, one should not let blood, as the Master said: Only one who has the merit of his ancestors and relies on it should let blood on the second and on the fifth days of the week, as the court on High, in the heavens, and the court below are equal. On the third day of the week, what is the reason that one does not let blood? It is because the planet Mars is dominant during the even hours. On Shabbat eve, Mars also dominates during the even hours? Since the multitudes have already become accustomed to letting blood on Shabbat eve, the verse: “The Lord protects the simple-hearted” (Psalms 116:6) applies in this case.

§ The Gemara discusses the halakha of exposure with regard to various foods and beverages. The Sages taught: Wine that is still fermenting is not subject to the halakha of exposure. ... In accordance with whose opinion is this stated? It is stated in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said: A person may eat grapes and figs at night, and he need not have cause for concern, as it is stated: “The Lord preserves the simple” (Psalms 116:6).

(1) Response

(2) Greetings to the scholar, who engages with the laws of Mt. Horeb, the esteemed rabbi, my honored friend, the Torah chieftain, our master, Rabbi Gumprecht Oppenheim, may our Rock protect him.

(4) The root of the question is this: A certain man, who God has graced with a large estate, has villages and forests – forests in which all the beasts of the forest prowl. May he go himself to shoot with a rifle (lit. “fire stick”) to trap game, or is it forbidden for one of Israel to do this deed, whether because it causes pain to creatures (“tza’ar ba’alei hayim”), because it violates “you shall not destroy” (“bal tashhit”), or because it is customary to regard it as tza’ar ba’alei hayim? ...

(20) Thus far I have addressed the aspect of proper behavior, [contending] that man ought to distance himself from this. Now I say that it is even forbidden, for anyone who engages in this must enter the forests and place themselves in great danger, in places of packs of wild animals. And the Merciful One said: “Take great care of yourselves” (Deut. 4:15). And who was a greater and more expert hunter than Esau, about who Scripture attests: “Esau was a skillful hunter…” (Genesis 25:27). Yet look at what he said about himself: “I am about to die…” (ibid. 32). And no Scripture departs from its plain meaning, which is that he endangers himself each day among packs of wild beasts. So explains Nachmanides. So then how can a Jewish man insert himself into a place of packs of wild and vicious beasts? Yet even here, if one who poor and does so for sustenance, the Torah permitted it, like any maritime trader crosses the sea—for with regard to anything that is for the needs of one’s sustenance and livelihood, there is no choice. The Torah has said [about the wages of a day laborer]: “His life depends on it” (Deuteronomy 24:15). And the sages said (Bava Metzia 112a): “Why did this person ascend a ramp, dangle from a tree, and place himself at risk of death? Is it not for his wages?” But one whose main intention is not for sustenance, rather, he does to the place of packs of wild animals due to his heart’s appetite, and endangers himself, violates “Take great care of yourselves.”

(21) This is the formulation of Maimonides in Laws of Murderers and Preservation of Life 12:6: It is also forbidden for one to pass under a collapsing wall… and so too anything akin to this and other dangers—it is forbidden to pass through their place.

(22) Based on this, I now say that this entails a prohibition, as well as endangerment, and a third thing—that it causes his sins to be invoked—for this is no worse than [passing under] a collapsing wall [which, according to the Talmud, causes ones sins to be invoked before God]. ...

(23) According to our approach, we can understand this. One who walks in a dangerous place transgresses the words of the Torah, which states, “Take great care of yourselves.” It also causes his sins to be invoked, and consequently the Almighty is filled with anger at him—whereas any other transgression that one may do will not cause the Almighty to be filled with anger against him. But one who causes the invocation of all his transgressions is subject to the Almighty’s anger. Therefore, our Sages instructed one who must do so for his livelihood to recite this prayer for himself. But how can the prayers of one who does so in such an abhorrent manner be accepted? Thus, this activity includes a repugnant character trait, that is, cruelty, as well as a prohibition, endangerment, and the invocation of one’s sins.

(24) One who heeds me will therefore dwell safely, tranquilly, and contentedly at home and not waste his time with such things.