Sukkah 3a limits ma’akeh to a house used for human habitation, at least four by four amot (sixteen square, even if one side is less than four, according to Arukh HaShulchan Choshen Mishpat 427;1). “Habitation” means living/sleeping, so Sefer HaChinukh, following Rambam excludes shuls and study halls, because people do not live there. Arukh HaShulchan notes Gra and Sema debated this, because Sifrei seems to clearly include other spaces in the ma’akeh.
Arukh HaShulchan 427;5 held the requirement of ma’akeh was for a flat roof; slanted ones like many houses today are not generally used, he said, and therefore do not need a ma’akeh. [I think this is accepted, and wonder what level of use would change it. In popular culture, people sometimes have windows that lead onto the roof and sit on the slanted part. At what point would we say it needs a ma’akeh?]
Gra held that any space obligated in a mezuzah needs a ma’akeh (a bigger list than Rambam’s), where Sema thought they did not necessarily go together. It might be used enough by people to require a mezuzah, not often enough to need an enclosure on the roof.
Halakha also did not require a homeowner to avoid falls into his/her space; were his rooftop to run underneath some kind of thoroughfare, it would be the road above that would have to put up barriers to prevent falls.
Food, Drink, and Future Danger
In line with the Torah law, Chazal listed some dangers to avoid. Their list focused on drinking water or eating produce which might have deadly elements, but Sefer HaChinukh says they were teaching us to pay attention to whatever might damage us down the road. This invites a conversation he does not entertain, how far down the road, what level of danger. At what point is a behavior disallowed, because it flouts the message of the laws of ma’akeh? Hard to know.
Arukh HaShulchan gives another interesting example, a nursing mother being careful not to leave the infant where she might smother him/her. He recognizes the mother in such a tragedy she would not be considered even a rotzachat be-shogeg, an unwitting murderer, because she was intent on the baby’s welfare, but still thinks she would need significant repentance, and should make sure to avoid the problem by putting the baby in safe circumstances. There is nothing better than care, he adds. [Today, sadly, we have to add having safeguards not to forget a baby in a car.]
I think I’m attracted to this conversation because people have different risk tolerances, and we live in a world where society is quick to insist all such choices or options are equally valid. When it comes to safety, my understanding of Rambam, Sefer HaChinukh, Arukh HaShulchan, and other sources not directly germane here, is that Torah and halakha want us to be extremely careful with our lives, not just reasonably careful. There’s a range, but it should lean towards safety.
As Arukh HaShulchan 427;8 puts it: whoever says “I’m going to endanger myself, what’s it anyone else’s business?” could be hauled before a rabbinic court and disciplined. One might say, this isn’t a danger, but if it is a recognized danger, a Jew is not allowed to put him/herself into it.
