2
  1. The Halachah says (Rambam Rotzeach-uShmirat-Nefesh 11,5, read on to ch.13, interestingly haMechaber omitted those Halochos):

"הרבה דברים אסרו חכמים מפני שיש בהם סכנת נפשות.:"

"Our Sages forbade many matters because they involve a threat to life."

It is clear from Rambam, that our Sages of the Talmud defined "things that he considered dangerous" based both on their Torah AND empirical knowledge. Rambam followed the principle and added additional warnings based on his personal experience as a practicing physician and common knowledge of that time.

  1. The Poskim of our times, used the same approach when discussing the dangers of the 20th century (such as smoking), with some (Chofetz Chaim, Thitz Eliezer) clearly prohibiting it and some (R' Ovadia Yosef and R' Moshe Feinstein) finding ways to allow. They consulted the leading professionals to get an אמדנא of the danger.

  2. I heard a Shiur by a Rabbi in Jerusalem, that suggested, that since we all as a society (אנן סהדי) appoint special people responsible for setting the official definitions of "life threating" and not "life threating" situations in numerous areas, such as traffic laws, medicine, construction safety and many more, those laws can constitute the bar (אמדנא) for the Mitzvah of ונשמרתם.

Did some of the Poskim mention in their Shu"Ts relying on the federal laws and regulations (such as FDA for example), and do such directives create obligating אמנדא for שמירת הנםש Mitzvos?

Community
  • 1
Al Berko
  • 25,936
  • 2
  • 22
  • 57
  • 1
    How do you know that the DD"M regulations are because of danger to life? Maybe they are (just) to avoid injury. – Avrohom Yitzchok Jul 23 '18 at 21:09
  • 1
    I'm not sure what you mean by אנן סהדי? Also, why would halacha be affected by a non-halachic society's appointing of officials to determine acceptable danger levels? Ancient Roman society found it acceptable to have slaves battle lions... – Loewian Jul 23 '18 at 22:20
  • Crossing against a red light isn’t illegal in all states. Overeating and not exercising certainly isn’t illegal, and if it is, I’m moving to a different state. – DonielF Jul 24 '18 at 01:52
  • @AvrohomYitzchok I don't, they might be biased, I agree, but still, what's the אמדן for Venishmartem? – Al Berko Jul 24 '18 at 06:47
  • @Loewian Because you follow the siciety's rules in other, non-religious matters, like monetary. – Al Berko Jul 24 '18 at 06:50
  • @DonielF Do you think Jews must be more careful or more careless than the Goyim? If more, why not learn Kal Vachomer? – Al Berko Jul 24 '18 at 06:52
  • @AlBerko A Kal v’Chomer would be “it’s forbidden for them so it’s certainly forbidden for us.” You can’t make up prohibitions - just apply then further. Dayo lavo min hadin lihiyos kinidon. – DonielF Jul 24 '18 at 11:10
  • @DonielF It's already forbidden for us, we don't make up any new prohibition. The question is about the measure (מידה או שיעור). Can we derive those מקל וחומר? – Al Berko Jul 24 '18 at 12:30
  • @AlBerko דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנידון. If you’re trying to learn specific dangers from what’s already forbidden to non-Jews, you have a maximum of that which is forbidden to them. Thus, while such a logic may very well be true, you’ve provided terrible examples, as none of your examples are illegal everywhere or, in some cases, anywhere. – DonielF Jul 24 '18 at 12:37
  • @DonielF I don't think להיות כנדון is applicable here. I didn't want to emphasize the officiality of those regulations, only the "common sense", "common acceptance". Just like smoking or overweight is now unanimously accepted as dangerous - what do the Rabbis say now? – Al Berko Jul 24 '18 at 13:23
  • While not necessarily an exhaustive list, I believe dina d'malchusa dina is actually recorded in the Talmud in very limited instances (IMSMC just the right to collect taxes, to create legal tender, and some of contract law - all of which are exclusively monetary) – Loewian Jul 24 '18 at 13:53
  • @Loewian Please notice I didn't ask whether DD"M laws obligate us, I asked whether we can refer to them as a אמדנא or שיעור for the Mitzvahs of שמירת הנפש, i.g. how far should we go. – Al Berko Jul 24 '18 at 14:06
  • 1
    So why is DDM relevant? Certainly, a judicious government may make use of reasons that would also be relevant to halacha. But its actual specific enactments, or lack thereof, should be irrelevant to the determination of halachically acceptable risk. – Loewian Jul 24 '18 at 15:52
  • @AlBerko If that’s what you’re asking, then in addition to Loewian’s comments, your question is a dupe of https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/10609/ http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/10513/ https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/88532/ and https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/43673/ combined. – DonielF Jul 24 '18 at 16:46
  • @DonielF My question was not the clear Halocho, but the way of ruling it. R' Moshe consulted the doctors etc. So the question remains can DD"M regulations constitute אומדנא for our Halacha Psakim (e.g as RM"F did) – Al Berko Jul 24 '18 at 17:28
  • @AlBerko You’re saying in theory, if something illegal because of a danger to life, can we rely on that to make it halachically prohibited as well? That’s still not a Dina d’malchusa issue, but that’s a much better question than the one I thought you were asking. Would you please edit your post to clarify all of that, and we can clear out this comments section? – DonielF Jul 24 '18 at 17:56
  • @DonielF I rewrote the question, hope it is more clear now. – Al Berko Jul 24 '18 at 19:21
  • HaMechaber quotes these halachot in Choshen Mishpat 427:9 – Alex Jul 24 '18 at 20:07

0 Answers0