11

There are some things that we don't do because of the danger. Things we do not do because of Danger has a list of some of them.

Are these things dangerous to non-Jews as well?

Community
  • 1
Ariel
  • 5,159
  • 14
  • 29
  • Why would it? [15] – Double AA Nov 09 '12 at 01:30
  • @DoubleAA Are you saying they are dangerous only to Jews? (Also what is [15].) – Ariel Nov 09 '12 at 01:51
  • 1
    No I'm saying that non-Jews only have 7 prohibitions and this isn't one of them. [15 is just extra characters to get to the 15 character minimum for a comment.] – Double AA Nov 09 '12 at 01:57
  • @DoubleAA Which would raise the question of why not? If it's dangerous then a non-jew should be careful of them as well. Would Rabbanim tell a non-jew "ignore it, it doesn't apply to you", or would they say "you have no obligation in it, but you should be careful as well"? – Ariel Nov 09 '12 at 02:01
  • I don't understand why he would have to tell them anything. They can do whatever they want. (This is all assuming still that it doesn't apply. We're still waiting for a sourced answer on that issue.) – Double AA Nov 09 '12 at 02:18
  • @DoubleAA You've never met a non-Jew who is hugely respectful of Judaism and wants to do as much as possible without converting? My mother had an extremely close friend like that, and I am reasonably close to someone as well (who nearly converted but was stopped by the Beis Din at the last moment). – Ariel Nov 09 '12 at 02:23
  • 1
    Why do you construe me as disrespecting those individuals?? Obviously they can avoid eating meat and fish together if they want. You asked if they must do so and I said (that I think) they can do what they want. Why would you think otherwise? Putting their lives in danger may be stupid on their part, but I don't see any formal issue from a halachik point of view. Let's wait for an answer and see if my view is justified. – Double AA Nov 09 '12 at 02:45
  • 1
    @DoubleAA But I did not say "allowed to", I said "applies" to them. I'm especially wondering about things like eggs/onions/garlic overnight which is a ruach ra'ah - does a ruach ra'ah apply to a non-jew? Since these (some of them) are spiritual dangers, I would assume they would ask, so I was surprised when you insinuated they wouldn't care. – Ariel Nov 09 '12 at 02:56
  • 2
    @Ariel, your comments make your question much less clear. What exactly are you asking? Are you at least asking one of the following: Are they prohibited? Why aren't they prohibited? Are these things dangerous? Do non-Jews care that they are dangerous? Why don't non-Jews care that they are dangerous? -- Or are you asking something else entirely? – Seth J Nov 09 '12 at 03:31
  • @SethJ I'm asking question 1 (except I said apply since I don't think they are prohibited outright). If they don't apply then I'm asking 2 and 3 (except modify 3 by adding the words "to non-jews"). – Ariel Nov 09 '12 at 03:57
  • 1
    @Ariel I don't understand: If they are not prohibited [outright] to them, in what way should they apply? What other kind of prohibition is there? – Tamir Evan Nov 09 '12 at 10:46
  • @TamirEvan Things can be not prohibited yet also not recommended. I did not ask if they were prohibited (although I'm interested in that too) - I asked if they applied. i.e. are they also dangerous to a non-jew. – Ariel Nov 09 '12 at 10:54
  • 1
    @Ariel saying 'these Halakhot do/don't apply to non-Jews', to me at least, is the same as saying 'those dangerous things are/aren't forbidden to non-Jews', as the application of halakhot is to prohibit or to obligate. Also, in my opinion, 'are they prohibited to non-Jews' and 'are they dangerous for non-Jews' are two( at least) separate questions, and should be asked as such. – Tamir Evan Nov 09 '12 at 11:41
  • Ariel, I 100% agree with @TamirEvan. I don't think you are asking #1, because you specifically aren't asking about prohibition. As Tamir asked, in what other way could these things "apply"? You answered that you want to know if they are dangerous to non-Jews(#3). Is this really what you're asking? Why would they not be dangerous? DovF gives an interesting answer to that. – Seth J Nov 09 '12 at 13:13
  • @SethJ Egg/Garlic/Onion overnight has a 'Ruach Ra'ah', presumably a form of tuma. Does such a concept apply to non-Jews? I don't know, so I asked. A lot of the dangerous things seem more spiritual than physical - do those spiritual things affect non-jews in the same way? And yes, DovF's answer was interesting, but unfortunately did not answer everything I wanted to know. – Ariel Nov 09 '12 at 21:20
  • @SethJ I am asking a modified form of #1 (as I said in my reply to you). A non-Jews could be affected by these dangerous things, yet Rabannim never specific prohibited them to non-Jews. I don't know if that happened or not, so I asked. – Ariel Nov 09 '12 at 21:24
  • @TamirEvan (And SethJ, and DoubleAA) you guys seem more interested in clarifying my question then in answering it! Is this because the answer is obvious to you? Am I missing something? Why not just answer both ways - the question variants are not that different. – Ariel Nov 09 '12 at 21:26
  • 1
    Speaking for myself, because I don't know what you are asking. Every time I think I get it, you tell me (or demonstrate for me) that I don't. I'm at a loss. – Seth J Nov 11 '12 at 03:18
  • @SethJ You have my permission to pick any of the questions you think I might be asking, and answer it. So I don't know the exact specific detail I'm asking, but the general question is, I hope, clear. – Ariel Nov 11 '12 at 04:47
  • 1
    The question of whether something is dangerous for non-Jews is not a question about Judaism. – mevaqesh Nov 10 '17 at 18:35
  • If something is inherently physical dangerous (to a human, regardless of religion) does someone who has been educated about it have the responsibility to save another's well-being by informing him and/or preventing him from engaging in the dangerous practice? Can I serve a non-Jew fish and meat together if I believe that it constitutes a physical threat? – rosends Nov 13 '17 at 11:45

1 Answers1

16

There is an interesting Gemara in Avodah Zarah (31b) which provides a partial answer to your question:

אמר ליה שמואל לחייא בר רב בר אריא תא ואימא לך מילתא מעלייתא דהוה אמר רב אבוך הכי אמר אבוך הני ארמאי זוקאני דהוו שתו גילויא ולא מתו איידי דאכלי שקצים ורמשים חביל גופייהו

Said Samuel to Hiyya bar Rav: "O son of a scholar, come let me tell you a good thing which your father Rav used to say. Thus said your father: "The reason why those swollen Arameans who drink what is kept uncovered suffer no fatal consequences is because through eating abominable and creeping things their bodies become immune from it.""

(translation adapted from Soncino)

It seems that some of the things which are considered dangerous are only considered so due to other factors having to do with the physical constitution of one who observes the other laws of the Torah.

Dov F
  • 6,413
  • 22
  • 40