Harry Potter & Jewish law: Quidditch as an occupational hazard

Quidditch evokes several hypothetical problems in Jewish law (halakhah). Let’s briefly consider one hermercurial question: Is Quidditch a sport that is too dangerous to play?

                        (Here for more on Harry Potter.)

First, let us stipulate that Quidditch is not a sport that is intrinsically violent and, in effect, set up as a controlled/disciplined way for people to hurt each other, like boxing. Boxing involves much hitting, predictable wounding and, reciprocally, self-wounding. It is plausible in Jewish law to forbid such wounding, even for entertainment and with mutual consent. [1] (The Maccabiah games have baseball, not boxing.) Nevertheless, there have been many Jews in boxing, including Orthodox (?) boxer Dmitriy Salita.[2] [HT to this blog.]

UPDATE: Salita becomes first Jewish boxing champion in 30 years, HT Jew*school.

In Harry Potter, there have been serious injuries during Quidditch games -- but it’s no Roman circus (prohibited for spectators, too).[3] Can we agree that injuries during Quidditch are incidental to the design and functioning of the game? Nevertheless, like many sports, Quidditch may lead to serious injuries. For instance, players could collide midair or otherwise fall to the ground. To analyze such sports, we might turn to Rabbi Moses Feinstein, the consummate American poseq (decisor).

R. Feinstein wrote a teshuvah (responsum) on the hazards of playing baseball. The teshuvah was published in 1963, when there was a real danger of getting “beaned” by a pitcher.[4] Helmets were not required until 1971 and earflaps only later. Jewish major leaguers during this period included pitchers Ken Holtzman and Sandy Koufax. Anyway, R. Feinstein argues that batters can voluntarily submit to the chance of being beaned by a pitch in professional baseball. His cites one talmudic source: Bava Metzia 112 on Deut. 24:15. As an afterthought, R. Feinstein cites support for his position in a responsum of R. Ezekiel Landau (Noda bi-Yehudah 10) that permits hunting animals for the purposes of earning a living. R. Feinstein’s finding is based on two main criteria:

(1) Chances of severe injury. R. Feinstein assumes that the chance of serious injury in baseball is relatively distant (“one in several thousands”). Notably, R. Feinstein does not differentiate between harming and getting harmed (wounding and self-wounding). If it is acceptable for a batter to face 90+ mph fastballs, it is permissible for the pitcher to throw them. (That is, suicide and killing are both obviously forbidden by Jewish law… Reb Moshe does not comment here on the relative severity of either transgression.)

(2) Economic value of the activity. However, R. Feinstein gives his heter (permission) here for professional baseball only. A worker may consent to occupational hazards because they need to earn a livelihood (parnassah, which is commanded as a mitzvah).

How might R. Feinstein’s heter (permission) for professional baseball apply to school children and amateurs (cp. Quidditch)? (1) Reduced chance of harm. Ceteris paribus, school children would be prohibited from baseball. However, it is undeniable that school age children are not exposed to risks comparable to professional pitching. Furthermore, all baseball risks can be reduced by safety equipment. (Be sure your Little League is safe!) (2) Economic value of the activity. R. Feinstein quite likely would not approve comparable dangers for purely amateur sports. (Otherwise, why would he have limited his opinion to professionals?) Still, amateur sports might be condoned as comparable to professional baseball on various grounds. For instance, College and even Little League may be seen as a training ground for professional sports. Considering certain talmudic discussions, I believe that halakhah would permit apprentices and trainees to undergo reasonable occupational risks. [See my disclaimer if necessary.] In a more speculative vein, amateur sports may be seen as relevant networking (etc.) experience for earning a livelihood; if so, then R. Feinstein’s heter may apply to certain amateur baseball risks as well. (If recreational baseball is permitted by Jewish law.)

Now, what about Quidditch by school children at Hogwarts? (1) Chance of harm. I’ve only read Harry Potter books 1, 2, and half of 3, so far. Quidditch already has a track record of serious injuries, according to J. K. Rowling. However, the Quidditch injuries are mostly caused by outsiders (e.g., due to a spell or the appearance of Dementors). The game itself does not seem unusually dangerous. Flying, of course, is hazardous; in Harry Potter, though, flying falls within the halakhic category of a danger that is common to the multitude and acceptable because “The Lord preserves the simple” (cf. driving a car). In any case, the healing abilities of Madam Pomfrey et alia make up for the lack of safety equipment. So it seems likely that Quidditch is safer than professional baseball during the 1960’s. (2) Economic value. If Hogwarts is modeled on English schools, then sports offers training and networking for professional success. Furthermore, Quidditch is played professionally. Since wizards need to earn a livelihood, I’d argue that, from the standpoint of Jewish law, Quidditch adds sufficient economic value to justify its hazards even for amateur players.

(3) Caveat: informed consent. In his responsum, R. Feinstein emphasizes a key condition for his heter for professional baseball. All players must be playing of their own free will, with adequate knowledge of the dangers. If anyone plays Quidditch under duress due to Oliver Wood or the Dark Arts, then their exposure to the sport’s dangers cannot be condoned under Jewish law. By the same token, R. Feinstein warns that workers should not be running undue risks due to pressure by baseball managers and business owners. Occupational hazards without informed consent (MSDS's etc) are a non-starter.

Kaspit    כספית

For background on Quidditch, Wikipedia has a “project” on the Harry Potter books. Warning: The beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute. However, this allows vandals to put up unexpected spoilers. They get eliminated soon but you might chance upon one. Unfortunately, this happened to me today.

[1] On cosmetic surgery, R. Moses Feinstein reads Maimonides as forbidding wounding when it is derech nitzayon, contentious. Reading Maimonides differently, R. Eliezer Waldenberg apparently disallows harsh contact sports, without regard to contentiousness. Other halakhic sources on boxing here.

[2] Best quote: "If anyone wants a whupping from me, they got to wait until after sundown."

[3] See comments in Hirhurim here about Roman circus and misc about Harry Potter.

[4] Curiously, R. Feinstein does not mention who asked him the baseball safety question. Chaim Potok preparing for the opening of The Chosen? Seriously, does anybody know the circumstances the prompted this responsum?

Comments

[adderabbi]

i talked about some of these issues a while back:
http://adderabbi.blogspot.com/2005/01/offensive-lines-why-football-makes-me.html

[kaspit]

Fine, I’m with you, at least against professional American tackle football. As you said: “I heard that R' Lichtenstein (who was quite the baller in his day, mi-pi ha-shmu'a) distinguishes between sporting activities where the violence is incidental (baseball, basketball) and where it's an integral part of the game (boxing). This latter category constitutes real chabalah [ed. injury]. Some might argue that violent contact is incidental in the game of football. That's crazy naive. … And it's worse than violent movies, because here the violence is real and valued. No "kids can distinguish between reality and fiction" nonsense here. Implication: I don't think it's a good idea to participate in, encourage, or otherwise promote the culture of college and professional football. Bad chinuch, as they say.”

BTW, might you track down a written source for R. Lichtenstein? And what sport did he play?

Leaving American excessiveness for a moment: How would you explain/condone the Lubavitcher Rabbi Joseph Gutnick, president of an Australian football team (Melbourne Demons)?

[adderabbi]

are you sure that gutnick runs an american style football team and not what we yankees call 'soccer', which would probably go along with baseball and basketball? rugby would be more problematic, i think. nevertheless, i'm not going to lose any sleep over this because of gutnick. he's not best known for his rabbinic credentials.

R' Lichtenstein played basketball (that's the usual connotation of 'baller').

i heard his position from hearsay - reliable hearsay, though. i don't know if it's written anywhere.

[kaspit]

The Australian team is definitely not American football, but rather rugby and without much protective gear. The "AFL" website contains a well-stocked section called "injury news". I'll post more on injuries...

[balabusta]

The inherent dangers of Quidditch seem to me so great that I don't understand why Molly Weasley inter alia permit their children to play. What about the bludgers? Please note that although there are Jewish children at Hogwarts (or at least, children with Jewish surnames) they do not play Quidditch. My own dear father tells me that he doesn't think he would have permitted any son of his to play football, because it is a dangerous sport. But he is not a halachic authority, merely a concerned Jewish parent (in internet lingo, a CJP.)

[kaspit]

Forgive my naivete, but please tell me ASAP, who are believed to be the Jewish children?

Important caveat: my post deals with halakhah, which only applies to Jews and perhaps not even Jews, given relevant gentile law (dina d'malchuta dina). I was planning to explain this in a future post about HP and Noahide laws.

And let's not forget touch and flag football...

What is your reason for thinking Quidditch is so dangerous? Doesn't wizardry protect these poor youngsters?

[balabusta]

Well, there is, uh, Anthony Goldstein. I wasn't the only one to notice him:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=10845

Of course we don't hear much about him, because he doesn't play Quidditch! This person writes more about the ethnicity of the Hogwarts students:

http://www.sugarquill.net/index.php?action=gringotts&st=classlist

(The author wrote this before the most recent book, but I think she got a lot of things right.)

Now about Quidditch: the Bludger is an iron ball that has been enchanted so that it will attack the players! The beaters hit the bludgers with bats in order to redirect them to hit players on the other team. In book 4, a professional Quidditch player says of his post-Quidditch ambitions, "I can't be hit by bludgers all my life, now can I?" (I will not reveal more of the plot as you haven't read that one!)

[kaspit]

Balabusta -- thanks, that Sugarquill article is a thorough analysis. Are you saying that bludgers wound players enough to qualify Quidditch as a contact sport, like football?

Also, thanks for the tip on Anthony Goldstein. Has anybody written about his halakhic duties (violations) in Hogwarts? I don't suppose he's avoiding Quidditch because his rav considers it a contact sport?

[shmuel]

The Minchat Chinuch in his disucssion of hitting parents, takes for granted that they (and individuals) can waive their right not to be hit.

The Rav, reportedly, thought this was absurd, because of the prohibition against self-battery. There is room, though, to distinguish between violence, and violence that results in bodily damage.

(MC in several places tends to view slef directed nagative prohibitions as being different than the other oriented versions: e.g. suicide, self-cursing, and self-battery. Some other time, though...)

MC is actually followed by at least one posek. Rav Unterman (the former Israeli Chief Rabbi) in Shevet Mihuda permitted boxing in British schools, on the grounds that the hitting is not intended to hmiliate the other player, but the whole enterprise is designed to improve them. (Perhaps, shades of permissivities for cosmetic surgery?)

As is well known, there are two different versions of Maimonides's definition of batter, whether it's by way of fighting or humiliation -- these words differ in only one leter in Hebrew).

In any case, I have to admit that regarding sports where people can really get hurt, done recreationally, I do find the argument of the Rav compelling. (When I saw Shevet Mihuda, I couldn't believe what I was reading. From MC, one expects such things ;-> .)

/sh

[kaspit]

When I get back home I'll look into the sources you cite, thanks. But it sounds as if Shevet Mihuda is based on a different assessment of the bodily damage incurred in boxing. It would be helpful to investigate the relationship between harm to self and to others, eg Minchat Chinuch, because it bears directly on occupational health cases. (And sometimes environmental cases, e.g. a community that is willing to negotiate w/a polluter to accept a degree of harm. Cf Aaron Levine of YU).

[Rachel]

Oh, this is totally delightful! I'm a big fan of the Harry Potter books, and it's fun to see halakhic reasoning applied to the legitimacy of playing Rowling's charmingly quirky (imaginary) game.

Though it's true that Bludgers are enchanted to go after players, I think that danger is alleviated by the healing skills of Madame Pomfrey (and, in a real pinch, the mediwitches and mediwizards of St. Mungo's), so I don't think the dangers are such that they would make Quidditch impermissible.