Rabbi Menken on the Orthodox controversy (mahloqet) over tobacco

Rabbi Yaakov Menken commented about criticism of Rabbi Moses Feinstein’s responsa on smoking. Rabbi Menken wrote:

The "defense" of Reb Moshe, assuming such were necessary, is rather simple: "who is wise? He who perceives the future." If he had prohibited smoking entirely, it would have been honored in the breach -- people truly addicted to smoking are not able to stop immediately even when a doctor tells them that they are in imminent danger, so why would any reasonable person imagine that even bnei Torah would exhibit superhuman strength, en masse?

Like other supporters of Reb Moshe, Rabbi Menken seems to argue that Reb Moshe did not want to prohibit (issur) what Orthodox smokers "cannot abide". Addiction seen not merely as a excuse, like duress, but as a reason not to publicly forbid smoking. However, this hypothesis about R. Feinstein’s motivation in 1963 has never been substantiated. Wouldn’t Jewish readers infer a "cannot abide" implication more from silence than from explicit argument(s) against a prohibition? [1] Moreover, various Orthodox authors understood his 1963 psaq to be permissive on smoking, hence the request for a reconsideration in 1981. [2]

If Rabbi Menken is correct, then Reb Moshe (1963) already viewed smoking as, ideally, forbidden from the outset (lechatkhila) but reasonably excused habitual smokers. So R. Menken retrojects R. Feinstein’s 1981 writing onto his brief reaction in 1963. It's not convincing historically, but I'd like to believe this because a hermercurial use of Jewish law, like all law, requires apologia for precedents. R. Menken further says:

Rather, [Reb Moshe] said that even those accustomed to smoking should not allow their sons to smoke. [Yes – 1981]  And within one generation, smoking in the American charedi community went from ubiquitous to rare -- a far more precipitous decline than that in secular society, despite the medical evidence.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much reliable data on smoking in the American charedi community. I’ve heard of a decline, too – in comparison to Israel. When specifically did the decline in America occur? How much decline was promoted by secular anti-smoking efforts in the U.S.?

Kaspit  כספית

[1]  Cp. Jacob Katz, A Shabbes Goy, on the tacit use of the “community cannot abide” principle in regard to sabbath work practices.

[2] Several writers tackled the 1963 psaq as a lenient approach to smoking, not as an implied prohibition lechatkhila. (R. Moes Aberbach, R. Nathan Drazin, Dr. Fred Rosner, Rabbi J. David Bleich, etc.)

Comments

[Yaakov Menken]

I don't think that's what I would say -- that Reb Moshe viewed smoking as an Issur Lechatchila in 1963. On the contrary, he says (then) that even for someone who is personally careful for health reasons, it's not prohibited to light a match for a smoker. He merely says that it's "appropriate to refrain from this" because of the possibility of getting sick.

If anything, he might be perceived as retaining this attitude in 1981, because he still doesn't want to prohibit it outright. He does take, again, a permissive position: "Even though certainly in a simple case of risk to health, one shouldn't rely upon [H' is the Guardian of Fools]... it seems clear that in a thing where there are many to whom it is not injurious to their health at all -- like many types of food that people enjoy to the extreme like fatty meat and extremely hot (spicy) things, but this is bad for the health of some, there is no prohibition to consume them because of a risk to health, since most people are not endangered by this."

As I said (in an email to you), there isn't a black & white here. In 2006, fatty meats are now a proven health risk -- so, for that matter, is refined sugar. For maximal health we should eat only whole grains, vegetables and soy -- with chicken on Shabbos, skin removed. Fish is good, but sushi is out because of the risk of parasites.

Not only is parachuting a risk to health -- so is talking on a cell-phone, headset or not, while driving. It is the classic "ayn l'davar sof" -- there is no end to the thing.

I also heard from a Rav in the interim that, indeed, it was well known that Reb Moshe considered carefully if a ruling would be honored in the breach -- he considered this an embarrassment of Torah. In this case, the younger generation would have followed their elders. They, too, would have smoked, and little would have been accomplished.

Instead, it was precisely this that Reb Moshe stopped -- by speaking davka to smokers, telling them not to allow their children to smoke. This volume of Igros Moshe was published in 1985, and within 15 years smoking in American yeshivos had gone from endemic to unwelcome.

Before criticizing Reb Moshe, one must find another demographic that was transformed to an even greater extent -- so as to be able to reasonably argue for what he "should" have said. It is my understanding of the data that, to the contrary, secular anti-smoking efforts did not have nearly the same effect -- and even with 20/20 hindsight, Reb Moshe's tremendous wisdom was reflected in his words.

[Anonymous1]

Oy vay. What a tortured defense! Unfortunately, R. Menken is hopelessly mired in the binary. His defense is based on a notion of the complexities of the issue, yet he fails to perceive many of the complexities. First, what about the issue of second-hand smoke? The smoker does not only damage himself or herself. In that regard, if R. Moshe is focused on the impact on the next generation, the hypocrisy of smoking while telling the next generation not to do so also devalues the admonition. Second, what about the complexity of scarce medical resources? Look at the impact that lung cancer has on a medical system that is increasingly burdened by spiraling health care costs that challenge the provision of health care to all.

The diet examples of R. Menken pale in comparison to the data on lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease for smokers. Perhaps the best example of Talmudic treatment of this kind of scourge is the treatment of the tanner, which had to be limited to the outskirts of the city.

If our discourse on these issues is to be l’shem shamayim, my hope is that our analysis be much more rigorous!

[kaspit]

Anonymous1 --
1. On second-hand smoke, R. Feinstein did write an interesting responsum on this in 1980. (Cited here.) Not sure we can fault R. Menken for not mentioning this, because it might buttress his argument.

2. On the overall health care impact: good point. For discussion and Rabbinic responsa, see Zohar, Alternative in Jewish Bioethics.

3. On relative risk of smoking to dietary, etc. Here we might resort to statistical thresholds (e.g. R. Bleich), or defer to social practices (dashu bo rabim), or offer more nuanced halakhic messages, which may be R. Menken's point.

R. Menken -- Your argument does seem to try to tease out the nuanced messages in Reb Moshe's psaqim, halakhah is not black and white (issur v'heter). Is that right? In 1963, it wasn't assur (forbidden) to enable others to smoke, but by 1981 R. Feinstein is prohibiting us (la'asor) from letting youngsters start smoking. Doesn't this make smoking issur lechatkhila (prohibited a priori) in 1981? How else would you categorize the nuanced message to current habitual smokers in 1981, for whom R. Feinstein says smoking is not prohibited outright?

Anyway, a difficulty (qashya) remains because, as you noted, Reb Moshe compared smoking to fatty foods in 1981. By then, medical knowledge showed the two risks to be incomparable. Hence, I surmise that R. Feinstein had reasons to deflate the relevance of scientific expertise to the halakhic decision, at least in this case.

Thanks to you both,

Kaspit

[Yaakov Menken]

Kaspit,

As I said before, and on the contrary, Reb Moshe still says H' is the Guardian of fools, and does not say it is assur, in 1981. He's giving advice, not making issurim. "It is certainly appropriate for everyone, and especially bnei Torah, not to smoke since there is a risk of danger."

Anonymous1, second-hand smoke? He didn't even begin to talk about it. You could as soon forbid driving in Denver, which makes the air so poisonous that unhealthy people are told not to go outside on the wrong days. That risk does not "pale in comparison" to smoking -- and a sedentary life, with lots of red meat, probably has a much higher mortality rate than jogging 3 miles a day, eating whole grains and vegetables... and having a cigarette every day. So at what point do you point at something and say this, but not that, is a killer risk?

The health care cost issue is an even sillier digression. It is extremely crass to try to measure a lifetime in dollars; from an economic perspective, what is the cost/benefit ratio of retirees? They contribute nothing further, while with each passing year they cost more money. Does that make his or her life without value, chalilah?

As everyone involved in the delivery of care knows, those who die in traffic accidents are much less costly to the system than those who slowly decline through old age -- but no one is suggesting that we stop making cars safer. Neither do we want to see people dying of lung cancer, but economics are hardly the reason -- an early death of lung cancer is actually more "economical".

And while it is easy to sit in front of your computer and moan about "devaluing the admonition" in blog comments, I return you to the end of my previous comment: "Before criticizing Reb Moshe, one must find another demographic that was transformed to an even greater extent -- so as to be able to reasonably argue for what he 'should' have said." Not even the Surgeon General's own warning had such a transformative effect on a community.

[kaspit]

Rabbi Menken, thanks for your patience on this.
You say that Reb Moshe in 1981 is “giving advice, not making issurim.”

However, in the same paragraph you’ve quoted, R. Feinstein concludes: “Certainly one should not take up smoking or allow his children to do so, even if he himself is already addicted. Besides the danger involved, there is good reason to prohibit smoking because one should not habitualize himself to all sorts of pleasures ...." (Translated by Menachem Slae per my previous post.)

So, if he’s not making an issur (prohibition), it’s extremely close. He’s at least asserting grounds for an issur. Do not take up smoking. Where does that leave those who already habitually smoke? Maybe the shomer peta’im (Hashem safeguards fools) is also close to an exemption or permit to smoke, yet not quite. Could that mean that Reb Moshe’s psaq functions more as a limud zechut on smoking?

Kol tuv,

Kaspit

N.B. As R. Michael Broyde points out, a limud zechut (a plausible alternative under Jewish law) may be given for an after-the-fact (be'deeved) ruling in a situation that the decisor (poseq) believes deserves a different ruling from the get go (lechatkhila). (Cp. R. Feinstein’s Igrot Moshe EH 1:70)

[Yaakov Menken]

A small correction, since in this context the language is very important -- Reb Moshe doesn't say "there is good reason to prohibit smoking" but "yesh l'asor l'hisragel bazeh," which is better translated as "there is to prohibit to become accustomed to this [smoking]." He's saying that, in general, a person shouldn't become addicted to the pleasures of this world, be that in smoking or anything else. As an actual prohibition, that has all the strength of saying that a person shouldn't become addicted to video games. It's very good advice, and a person should follow it as Da'as Torah, but he's not claiming that a person who becomes addicted to cigarettes (or video games) is an avaryan, a wilful sinner. It's a very different thing.

[H. A. Massig]

Re: Rabbi Menken's "A small correction."

A brief review of the use of the phrase "yesh le-esor" in other teshuvot of R. Moshe zt"l in the very same volume (Chosen Mishpat, 2) of Iggerot Moshe shows that this phrase is meant to prohibit (in our case, smoking). R. Moshe was not simply giving good eitzah/advice. Granted, "yesh le-esor" is not a very STRONG way of expressing a prohibition.

It certainly would be worthwhile for someone to do a fuller study of the phrase in all of R. Moshe's teshuvot, but that goes beyond the scope of this comment.

--H. A. Massig

“Certainly one should not take up smoking or allow his children to do so, even if he himself is already addicted. Besides the danger involved, there is good reason to prohibit smoking because one should not habitualize himself to all sorts of pleasures ...." (Translated by Menachem Slae per my previous post.)

So, if he’s not making an issur (prohibition), it’s extremely close.

WADR, not close at all. R Moshe is talking about establishing social norms, he doesn't mean issur as a halachic issur, but more like social disapproval, make it a norm not that smoking is frowned upon.

"It certainly would be worthwhile for someone to do a fuller study of the phrase in all of R. Moshe's teshuvot, but that goes beyond the scope of this comment."

Irrelevant. context is all important. To understand what he means you need to read *this tshuva* and percieve that he's *just said* that there aren't grounds to say it's halachically ossur. Then he said it's an ugly habit, then he says that it make sense to frown upon it..this means at most yeshivas can have anti smoking policies to establish norms. It *doesn't* mean halachic issur. R Moshe is assumingthe reader follows his logic.