OU HALACHA YOMIS (OUKosher.org)
QUESTION: How far must one go to avoid dangerous situations? What is meant by the statement of Chazal “chamira sakanta m’issura” (matters of danger are more stringent than prohibitions themselves)?
ANSWER: The Rema (YD 116:5) lists various precautions one is obligated to take to avoid dangerous situations. For example, one may not walk alone outside at night or walk under a leaning wall or on an unstable bridge. The Rema explains that the need to avoid these dangerous situations is because we are more stringent with a sofek sakana (possible danger) than with a safek issur (possible prohibition). Presumably, the Rema means that regarding issurim we rely on chazakos (status quo) and rov (majority), while we would not rely on such considerations when it comes to matters of Sakana (see Chasam Sofer Avoda Zara 30a). If there is even a small percentage of danger, the situation must be avoided.
One notable exception is what the Noda B'Yehuda (Tinyana YD 10) writes that one is permitted to place himself in sakana for the purpose of earning a living. This can be inferred from the Gemara Bava Metziya (112a) which explains the verse "v'ailav hu nosai es nafsho" (Devarim 24:15) (and he risks his life for it [his wages]). The Gemara explains the verse as follows. Since your worker climbed up ladders, hung from branches, and placed himself in mortal danger to earn his wages, you must certainly pay him on time.
QUESTION: Is it considered a sakana (danger) to walk outside at night alone?
ANSWER: The Rema (YD 116:5) writes that it is forbidden to place oneself in danger, such as to walk outside at night alone. The source for this is the Gemara Pesachim (112b) which states that there were mazikim (dangerous spirits) that would attack those who walk outside alone at night. The Gemara relates that Abayei commanded these spirits to leave the populated areas. However, the Gemara concludes that the mazikim have not completely gone away. The Rema ruled that since Abayei’s plea was not successful, it remains forbidden to travel alone at night even in populated areas. However, the Turei Even (Chagiga 3b) understood that Abayei’s prayer was mostly accepted, and from then on it became uncommon for mazikin to enter populated areas. It is only an extra stringency not to walk alone at night in a city. The Shaarim Ha’Mitzuyanim B’Halacha (68:4) writes that even according to the Rema, if one walks in a lit area, it is as if one is walking during the day, and there is no sakana.
QUESTION: Does Ru’ach Ra’ah still exist today?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Pesachim 112a and various other places) warns us that we must be careful not to subject ourselves to ru’ach ra’ah (damaging spirits). The Gemara equates ru’ach ra’ah with Sakana (danger) and regarding some forms of ru’ach ra’ah the Gemara states “damav b’rosho” (one’s blood is on his own head), meaning that one should view this as mortal danger. However, the Magen Avrohom (173:1) writes that there are many forms of ru’ach ra’ah that no longer pose a danger.
For example, the Gemara (Yoma 77b) writes that one must wash hands before feeding bread to a young child, otherwise a ru’ach ra’ah will affect the bread. The Tur (OC 613) writes that this form of ru’ach ra’ah no longer exists. As such, there is no longer a requirement to wash one’s hands before touching bread that one will feed to a child.
Yet, in certain cases, we must still be careful regarding ru’ach ra’ah. Most notably, the Gemara (Shabbos 109a) states that when one awakes in the morning, one must wash their hands (three times) to remove ru’ach ra’ah. Until one does so, one must be careful not to touch one’s mouth, nose, eyes or ears so as not to allow the ru’ach ra’ah to enter into one’s body. Also, one may not touch food, since the ru’ach ra’ah will spread to the food. Although the Maharshal (Chulin 8:12) questions whether any form of ru’ach ra’ah still exists today, the consensus of most poskim is that this is still a concern. The halachos of removing ru’ach ra’ah from one’s hands are codified in Shulchan Aruch (OC 4:2-5). If one touched food before washing in the morning, the Mishnah Berurah (4:14) writes that bedieved (after the fact) the food may be eaten, but if possible, the food should be rinsed three times.
QUESTION: Is there a danger to cook fish and cheese together?
ANSWER: The Beis Yosef (YD 87:3) writes that just as one may not eat fish and meat together, because this is viewed as a sakana (danger), similarly one may not eat fish and milk together. The Rema (Darkei Moshe 87:4) disagrees, and writes that he never saw this stringency observed. Most Ashkenazi poskim, including the Shach and Taz, did not accept this chumra. However, the Pischei Teshuva (YD 87:9) points out that Rabeinu Bechaye (13th century) in his commentary on Parshas Mishpatim (Shemos 23:19) also forbade eating fish with cheese because of possible danger. Even among Sefardim who follow the ruling of the Beis Yosef, many differentiate between fish and cheese, which they view as a sakana, and fish and butter which they permit. Some Ashkenazi poskim (such the Pri Megadim YD 87:3) do accept this chumra and write that one should be careful not to eat fish and cheese together. However, most Ashkenzi poskim agree with the Chasam Sofer (YD 101) who writes that since the Rambam who was among the greatest doctors did not caution against this, and there is no mention of this in the Gemara, there is no need to be concerned.
QUESTION: Is one permitted to drink a beverage that had been left uncovered and unattended?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Avoda Zara 30a) discusses the laws of giluy (beverages left uncovered). Chazal forbade drinking certain beverages that were left uncovered and unattended, due to concerns that venomous creatures, such as snakes or scorpions, might drink from the beverage and leave behind some of their venom. Tosfos (Avoda Zara 35a, s.v. Chada) writes that in the countries where they lived, this concern did not exist, and beverages left uncovered were allowed to be consumed. Ordinarily, once Chazal issue a gezeira (decree), the gezeira remains in force even if the reasoning no longer applies. This case is different since the original gezeira was only enacted for places where snakes were common. Accordingly, Shulchan Aruch (YD 116:1) rules that one may drink a beverage that was left uncovered. However, the Pischei Teshuva (116:1) writes that the position of the Vilna Gaon and the Shelah Hakadosh is not to leave drinks unattended. The commentaries to the Maaseh Rav explain that the Vilna Goan held that there are secondary reasons for Rabbinic decrees that apply even when the primary reason is no longer relevant. Common practice is to follow the position of the Shulchan Aruch, though some adhere to the more stringent opinion.
QUESTION: I have heard people say that one should not drink water that was left out all night. Is there a basis for this?
ANSWER: We have seen in the previous halachos, that according to some poskim, even today, there is a concern of giluy (beverages left uncovered). However, the concern of giluy is not limited to being left out all night. If one left water uncovered and unattended even for a short time, for those who are concerned with giluy, it is viewed as a sakana. However, as was discussed, most poskim maintain that in the industrialized areas where we live, we need not be concerned with giluy. Is there any more reason to be concerned if the water was left out all night?
It is written in Shulchan Aruch Harav (Shemiras Haguf siff 7) that it is considered a sakana (danger) to drink water, or any drink that was diluted with water, that remained all night in a metal utensil. However, Tzitz Eliezer (22:40) cites many poskim who argue with this ruling of the Shulchan Aruch Harav, and the generally accepted custom is not to be concerned with this. Sefer Divrei Yatziv (YD 33) points out that the Gemara (Nida 17a) which is the source for this halacha does not mention water, only diluted drinks. He explains that diluted drinks refer to very strong wine which require dilution. This type of wine is no longer available, and therefore this halacha no longer applies. Furthermore, poskim point out that although this chumra is mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch Harav, this comment was printed in parenthesis, indicating that he was uncertain as to whether it was correct. Since this Gemara was not codified as halacha by the Rambam or Shulchan Aruch (the first to mention it is the Shulchan Aruch Harav) and the custom is clearly to be lenient, poskim write that one may drink water that was left in a metal utensil overnight.
