Q&A: Prohibitions Because of Danger
Prohibitions Because of Danger
Question
Hello Rabbi!
Aside from washing the hands at the end of the meal, is there any ordinance over which no blessing is recited because it was instituted "because of danger"?
Answer
I don’t remember. Usually these are prohibitions, and a blessing is not relevant to them.
I’ll comment on the law itself. It seems better to explain that no blessing is recited because this is not really an ordinance at all. It is simply a warning against danger, nothing more. A practical difference is that when the danger has passed, or if it becomes clear that there is no danger, there is no need to formally repeal the rule by vote, since it lapses on its own (because there is no actual legal enactment here, only a warning). Similar to legumes in Column 2, where I explained that it is a concern, not a decree.
Indeed, I asked this question because I’m in the middle of writing a short article arguing that washing the hands at the end of the meal was not really "instituted" at all, but is more like a kind of human obligation when there is an actual concern of danger. And today, when that concern no longer exists, this does not require a formal procedure of repealing an ordinance, nor does it need explanations like "the Sages instituted it only in a reality where there is danger" (the approach of Tosafot). From the outset, there is nothing here at all.