Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: How Big a Fool Does HaShem Protect/What is Called Acceptable Risk?

Living is dangerous.  In fact, we have centuries of incontrovertible proof that death is always preceded by life.  When I was teaching about radiation safety to nurses in a hospital who worked with radiation therapy, I wanted to give them a feel for how dangerous radiation is.  It turns out that the risk of death from the maximum legal yearly dose of radiation is approximately the same as just living for a day and a half at age 60.

Traveling is risky; which is why we have a special prayer when embarking on travel.  I recently asked R' Fuerst if I should say תפילת הדרך when I leave for work in the morning on my bike.  "Is it dangerous?", he asked.  Well... I'm in traffic and I'm on a bike.  R' Fuerst replied in his usual cut to the chase manner, "If it's so dangerous, then you are not allowed to ride your bicycle in traffic.  If it's normal risk, then there is no reason to recite תפילת הדרך."  I decided it wasn't that dangerous... at least not dangerous enough to warrant me changing my mode of transportation to work.

Perhaps you consider that a foolish risk to take.  Perhaps, but we take risks all the time; sometimes less, sometimes more.  We sometimes also don't really think things through and get ourselves (unwittingly) into dangerous situations and -- Baruch HaShem! -- come out unscathed.  (As you may very well consider my bike commute. It's a free country, believe what you will.)  Am I using up merits by relying on a miracle?  I think not; rather, as discussed by Chazal (Shabbos 129b):
 'שֹׁמֵר פְּתָאיִם ה/HaShem protects fools (Psalms 116:6).

I don't smoke and have never smoked.  Both my parents smoked; both my siblings smoked.  How did I escape?  I have no clue; that's just the facts.  Smoking is, of course, risky.  Just how risky turns out to be more difficult to ascertain than you might think.  The topic is so volatile and the results to contentious, that the research is tainted by politics and funding sources.  My conclusion (after a half hour or so of internet research... you are welcome to do your own research) is that a heavy smoker is something like 20 times more likely to die of lung cancer than a non-smoker.  Right, smoking is dangerous.  In turns of raw numbers, though, that comes out to a 1 in 500 chance of dying from lung cancer for a non-smokers versus 1 in 25 for a heavy smoker.

That amount of risk, says R' Moshe on smoking (Igros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, 76; written the day after Shavuos, 5741/June 10, 1981), is small enough to be covered by 'שֹׁמֵר פְּתָאיִם ה/HaShem protects fools.  Which means to say, that the risk is not great enough to be able to categorically stated that Jewish law forbids someone to continue smoking.  (Though the smoker's defence in the next world will be, "because I was a fool."  I'm not sure that's how I want to face my Creator....)

HOWEVER, and this is a very big however, in the last paragraph, R' Moshe explains why it is categorically forbidden by Jewish Law to start smoking.  There are two reasons independent reasons for this; either one on its own would be enough.

One: Smoking does incur risk and there is no tangible benefit.  Moreover, it is not even pleasurable for someone who is not used to it.  Jewish law certainly does forbid taking a risk for no reason.  (R' Moshe adds that because of this, everyone -- even someone who already smokes himself -- should most certainly dissuade his children from starting to smoke.)

Two:  It is forbidden for a Jew to constantly seek תאוות והנאות/lusts and pleasures.  Quite the opposite, a Jew is expected to looking constantly to decrease his attachment to wholly physical pleasures.  Smoking, which has an addictive component and therefore draws a person to craving the pleasure, is certainly forbidden.

The two reasons can (and should be) applied to every pleasure seeks in life.  We do not eschew pleasure, but we certainly do eschew pleasure for its own sake.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...

Thought for the Day: Yetzer HaRa -- Spiritual Force of Tuma vs Physical Ta'avos

In any project planning, there are two basic approaches: top down and bottom up.  Top down starts with describing what you want done at the highest level that seems reasonable.  You then break that down into a list of things that are smaller in scope (they only accomplish part of the job) and are therefore easier to actually accomplish.  That process can is then repeated with each sub-project.  Each iteration produces a new set of smaller projects.  For any of the projects, the level above provides the "why" for the project of interest, and the projects below provide the "how" for the current project.  Bottom up starts, as it's name suggests, from the lowest level -- here is stuff I know I can do, and proceeds by asking "what can I do by putting this stuff together?" For example, I have a project to slake my thirst.  Top down would start by a requirement to get a cool drink into a container from which I can drink.  That breaks down into: (1) fin...

Thought for the Day: Why Halacha Has "b'di'avad"

There was this Jew who knew every "b'di'avad" (aka, "Biddy Eved", the old spinster librarian) in the book.  When ever he was called on something, his reply was invariably, "biddy eved, it's fine".  When he finally left this world and was welcomed to Olam Haba, he was shown to a little, damp closet with a bare 40W bulb hanging from the ceiling.  He couldn't believe his eyes and said in astonishment, "This is Olam Haba!?!"  "Yes, Reb Biddy Eved,  for you this is Olam Haba." b'di'avad gets used like that; f you don't feel like doing something the best way, do it the next (or less) best way.  But Chazal tell us that "kol ha'omer HaShem vatran, m'vater al chayav" -- anyone who thinks HaShem gives partial credit is fooling himself to death (free translation.  Ok, really, really free translation; but its still true).  HaShem created us and this entire reality for one and only one purpose: for use...