Gezerot and other rabbinic rulings are often designed to prevent halakhic menschen from breaking (esp. Biblical) rules. Do X to avoid sinning. At times, halakhah is designed to prevent Jews from getting hurt.[1] Do X to avoid danger (סכנה).
So far, in ch.2 of bShab, the Talmud or commentaries declare that several halakhot are designed to avoid danger. What is a danger and how does it relate to our hermercurial project? The rabbinic texts don’t say much about danger, here’s roughly what they offer:
- During times of danger, one ought to place chanukah candles on the table, rather than in a window near public domain. (21b) Although the mitzvah of Chanukah is to publicize the miracle each year, one may be circumspect in danger. What danger does our daf have in mind? Drawing on another talmudic passage (bGit 17b), Rashi explains that candlelighting on “the day of Ides” was outlaws by those danged Persians.
- Out of concern for night-time dangers, the sages established a law (a taqanah) that lengthened the Friday evening prayers (ma’ariv) at shul so that all the attendess could leave at the same time. Per Rashi, the rabbis stipulated that people could pray in their own homes, except on Friday (i.e., shabbos eve). Rashi claims that the sages were concerned about the danger of demons (maziqin). (bShab 24b)
- Danger is again cited (26a) as the rationale for two halakhic requirements about the ritual shabbos lighting. As recited in the Friday eve liturgy, mShab ch.2 forbids the use of white naphtha (נפט) as the fuel for the lamp. In a baraita, the rabbis also forbid using balsam (צרי). Why? Because naphtha and balsam “fly” (עף), which presumably means they too easily cause a fire. (The Talmud underscores the danger by relating the story of a Wicked Mother-in-Law (played by Jane Fonda?) who gets her daughter-in-law (J Lo) killed by coaxing the tractable girl to anoint herself with balsam. Nu, so should we boycott Jane Fonda?)
Give yourself a station break for mother-in-law jokes and let's go on. The Talmud here is recognizing three realms of danger: (1) the social practices and conduct of others, e.g. Persians; (2) the maziqin and other demons; and (3) the material world, e.g. physical hazards like naphtha. The 3rd links us straightaway to our concern for toxicality.
What is the relationship between social practices and physical hazards as two realms of danger?
[Try maybe this blog if you want to delve more into rabbinic demonology.]
So far, there is nothing to suggest that the gemara is tackling naptha, balsam etc as physical substances that are dangers purely in isolation. Instead, the texts put the dangers of toxic and hazardous materials in the context of their day-to-day handling. Thus, the texts do not show balsam to be dangerous per se, intrinsically, but rather in its use for anointing or ritual shabbat lighting. In our gradually-emerging hermercurial critique of business & technology, we had best distinguish between intrinsic and social-usage dangers.
(N.B. Our tag line reflects a concern not merely for toxicity but also for toxicality, as a nod to the sociality of toxic practices. I.e., “Chemicals don’t kill people, people ….”)
Last Sunday, I had the chance to visit a reminder about this social context for our daf yomi readings about the material world.
Pop Quiz: To what chemical was this statue erected in a Major U.S. City in the 1800s?
P.S. The statue's inscription implies a new drash (interpretation) on Isaiah 28: 29 29 "This [chemical] also cometh forth from the LORD of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working."
You can mull that over. Or you can get instant gratification (but that dulls the mind, doesn’t it?) here or at the source of this photo. Suffice it to say, that this statue aptly memorializes a splendid, life-enhancing use of a hazardous chemical.
Now, this is not to say that we should start putting all sorts of chemicals, like those newsworthy phthalates on a pedestal, as might some industry hacks. Granted, phthalates meet some plausible human needs. But every silver lining has its cloud, every Viagra has its blindspots, so to speak. Too often, there’s harm lurking behind the social practices and uses of hazardous materials.
When do we need a gezerah – preventive regulation –for such toxicality? Well, that’s the long essay question, which we can mull over shabbos. Wishing you a good one,
Kaspit כספית
[1] Endangering oneself unnecessarily is also a sin. So rules to avoid danger are, arguably, a tributary of the vast sea of halakhot to avoid sin.
Comments