Self-Endangerment and Safeguarding One's Life

Adapted from Shavuot-To-Go 5766

The Gemara, in numerous places records a prohibition against engaging in dangerous activities.  In this issue, we will discuss the source of the prohibition, the nature of the prohibition and its parameters.

The Source and Nature of the Prohibition

The Gemara, Berachot 32, records the story of a pious individual who refused to greet a Roman official because he was in the middle of his Amidah.  The Roman official questioned the pious individual as to why he would endanger his life and violate the verse (Devarim 4:9) "Be careful and guard your body well" (hishamer lecha ush'mor nafshecha me'od) as well as the verse (Devarim 4:15) "You shall carefully guard your body" (v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoteichem).  While neither of the verses seem to be referring to physically guarding one's body and it was only the Roman official who applied these verses to physical danger, many Rishonim, cite these verses as the source for the prohibition against self-endangerment.  [See Maharsha, Berachot 32b.]  The Gemara, Sh'vuot 36a, employs the verse "Be careful and guard your body well" as the source that one receives lashes for cursing oneself.

There is an important difference between the words used in each of the verses.  The first verse uses the term "hishamer" which usually connotes a negative commandment.  In fact, the Gemara, in providing the source that one receives lashes for cursing himself, notes that it is precisely because of the term "hishamer" that one can derive that cursing oneself violates a negative commandment.  [One only receives lashes for violating negative commandments.]  The second verse uses the term "v'nishmartem" which implies that there is a positive commandment to guard one's life.

Rambam's position on whether self-endangerment is a function of a positive or negative commandment is unclear.  Rambam, Hilchot Sanhedrin 26:3, writes that one who curses himself receives lashes and cites the first verse as the source.  However, Rambam, Hilchot Rotzei'ach 11:4, seems to cite the same verse as the source for the requirement to remove a dangerous item from a place where someone may be killed.  Rambam states: "Any hazard that is potentially lethal, there is a positive commandment to remove it and to beware of it and to be extremely cautious in this matter as it is stated 'be careful and guard your body well.' and if one does not remove them or places obstacles that lead to danger one has violated a positive commandment."

R. Yerucham F. Perlow (1846-1934), SeferHaMitzvot LaRasag, Aseh no. 1 and Aseh no. 77, offers two approaches to resolve the apparent inconsistency in the rulings of Rambam.  First, Rambam is of the opinion that "Be careful and guard your body well" is a negative commandment.  That which Rambam states "Any hazard that is potentially lethal there is a positive commandment to remove it," does not refer to the verse about self-endangerment, but rather to the mitzvah of ma'akeh, the positive obligation to build a fence around the roof of one's house (Devarim 22:8).  [That entire chapter of Hilchot Rotzei'ach deals with this mitzvah.]  Rambam then states "and to beware of it and to be extremely cautious in this matter as it is stated 'Be careful and guard your body well'," as a tangential matter referring to the negative prohibition against self-endangerment.  Rambam never meant to associate the verse "Be careful and guard your body well" with any positive commandment.

Second, "Be careful and guard your body well" is a positive commandment.  The Gemara that states that there is a negative violation for cursing oneself does not refer to the prohibition against self-endangerment, but rather to the general negative violation of using G-d's name in vain.  The positive commandment of "Be careful and guard your body well" serves to expand the prohibition of using G-d's name in vain to include cursing oneself.  Had there been no violation of self-endangerment, cursing oneself might be considered a permissible form of using G-d's name.  However, since there is a positive commandment to guard one's life, and cursing oneself constitutes a transgression of that commandment, use of G-d's name to curse oneself constitutes a violation of using G-d's name in vain.

R. Chanoch H. Eiges (1863-1941), Marcheshet 3:29 offers a third approach. When the situation requires one to be proactive in eliminating hazards, one who fails to do so is in neglect of a positive commandment.  Therefore, Rambam in Hilchot Rotzei'ach records a positive commandment for failure to remove dangerous obstacles.  However, when the situation requires one to avoid danger, one who actively places himself in a dangerous predicament is in violation of a negative commandment.  Therefore, Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin records a negative commandment for one who curses himself.

Practical Differences between the Two Approaches

There are a number of possible practical differences between the approach that there is a negative prohibition against self-endangerment and a positive commandment to safeguard one's life.  First, there are certain activities or procedures whose risk is not quantifiable.  It is possible that the activity is entirely safe and it is also possible that the activity is dangerous (either because of unknown factors or unknown long term effects).  If there is a positive commandment to safeguard one's life, one should be proactive and avoid activities that are not known to be safe.  If there is only a negative commandment, it is arguable that until there is a defined risk, there is no obligation to avoid it.

Second, Rambam dedicates the entire chapter four of Hilchot Dei'ot to the importance of eating healthy foods, exercising and maintaining an overall healthy lifestyle.  R. Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986), Igrot Moshe, Choshen Mishpat 2:76, notes that Rambam's recommendations regarding a healthy lifestyle are not a function of the negative prohibition against self-endangerment. Rather, Rambam states that there is an obligation to have a healthy body in order to properly serve G-d and these are recommendations to fulfill this mandate.  R. Chaim D. HaLevi (1924-1998), Aseh Lecha Rav 2:1, writes that Rambam's recommendations are based on the commandment of the verse "You shall carefully guard your body."  R. Feinstein is of the opinion that there is only a prohibition against act of self-endangerment and there is no positive commandment to maintain a healthy lifestyle, though it is strongly recommended.  R. Chaim D. HaLevi is of the opinion that there is an actual positive commandment to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Third, the Gemara, Shabbat 129b, states that if there is an activity that is dangerous but the masses are not concerned about the danger, it is permissible to engage in that activity based on the verse (Tehillim 116:6) "Shomer peta'im HaShem," G-d protects the simple..  R. Shneur Z. Fradkin (1830-1902), Teshuvot Torat Chesed, Even HaEzer, no. 44, understands that Rashi (1040-1105), Yevamot 12b s.v. meshamshot, is of the opinion that if the people decide to endanger themselves and no danger results, one may assume that there is no longer any danger.  If there is a minority of people who are harmed by endangering themselves in this situation, the principle doesn't apply and nobody has the right to endanger himself.  Ritva (1250-1330), Yevamot 72a, s.v. shomer, is of the opinion that although one is permitted to endanger himself in such a situation, one is not obligated to endanger himself, even to perform a circumcision.  According to Ritva, there is a known danger and it is nevertheless permissible to endanger oneself if one chooses to.  However, if one decides to refrain from such an activity, we do not consider him to be overly cautious.  R. Ovadia Yosef (b. 1920), Yabia Omer, Yoreh De'ah 3:7, notes that even if one does allow self-endangerment for a known risk when the masses are not concerned, it is only permissible in a case of need (i.e. the benefits must outweigh the risks).

If self-endangerment is simply a negative prohibition, whenever the "Shomer peta'im HaShem" principle is employed, there is no specific reason, other than one's own level of comfort, to refrain from the activity.  However, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1995, cited in Ma'adanei Shlomo page 145) suggests that if one refrains from such an activity in order to protect oneself, there may be a fulfillment of the positive commandment to carefully guard one's body.