02 Jan TRAVELING TO ISRAEL AMIDST CHALLENGING TIMES

As the winter vacation
rapidly approaches,
many individuals
aspire to travel to the
Holy Land. However,
concerns persist about
potential dangers,
instilling fear among those contemplating the
journey. If there is indeed a perceived danger,
some may question the halachic permissibility
of such travel, considering the Torah’s
directive to prioritize the preservation of life.
It is stated in the gmara (Shabbat 32a): “A
person should never place himself in a
dangerous situation, relying on the hope that a
miracle will be performed for him, as perhaps
a miracle will not happen. And even if a
miracle is performed for him, it will be
deducted from his merits.” Moreover, one
who enters a dangerous situation is destined to
face heavenly judgment, as mentioned in the
Sefer Chassidim (ה‘‘תרע(, which states, “Yet,
only your blood will I require” – if a person
dies due to his transgressions, such as
engaging in a quarrel that leads to his death,
he is destined to face judgment for causing his
own demise. Similarly, if he goes into a
hazardous place, like walking on ice in winter
and falling into water, leading to drowning, or
if someone enters an old and dilapidated
house, and it collapses on him while inside, or

if he engages in a dispute with a violent
individual, provoking and infuriating them,
resulting in injuries— all these individuals are
destined to face judgment for causing their
own deaths through their confrontations with
others, playing with the inevitable. Thus, we
learn that a person should avoid entering
hazardous places.
Certainly, at first glance, it appears that a
person should refrain from willingly exposing
themselves to potential danger, as the Torah
instructs, “ Beware for yourself; and guard
your soul”. The Rambam writesמהלכות יא פרק
that obstacle any ”: (רוצח ושמירת הנפש ה‘‘ד( ן
poses a danger to life, one is commandment to
remove it, be cautious of it, and be careful
with things that are good, as it is said, ‘Take
care for yourself, and guard your soul. We also
find similarly in Shulchan Aruch )Choshen
Mishpat 427:8 and 7(.
However, a question arises here, as we find
many instances where there is no prohibition
against taking risks. On the contrary, our sages
employed language instilling a sense of
security. For example (Shabbat 105a; Ketubot
104a) Chazal used the expression “פתאים שומר
השם) “Hashem protects the innocent) implies
that a person can walk innocently with
Hashem and not worry about impending
dangers.

Poskim have elucidated several
distinctions to provide clarity on when
to be concerned about potential danger
and when to proceed confidently.
Distinction between Certain and
Uncertain Dangers:
Sefer Binyan Tsion (קלז סימן (and Rav
Menashe Klien In Mishneh Halachot (
(רלד‘ סי ה‘‘ח wrote that a distinction is
made between a clear and visible danger
and probable danger. Regarding clear
and visible danger, we do not say
שומר מצוה לא ידע” or” Hashem Petaim Shomer“
רע דבר,“-) A person who performs a mitzvah
should not come to harm), as the power of
nature is strong, and one should not expect a
miracle to save him. For example, if an
individual is seriously ill and has been
medically advised by a doctor and a rabbi to
eat on Yom Kippur, but they choose not to
consume food, asserting, “I am observing the
commandment of fasting,” and as a result,
they succumb to the illness, they bear
responsibility for their own life. Contrary to
this, if there is only a potential danger that
could arise, there is a possibility in certain
situations to say “Shomer Petaim.”
Therefore, according to this approach we need
to evaluate the situation before us, considering
whether the danger is imminent or remote.
The current situation in Israel does not pose
an imminent and certain danger (and
hopefully, things will improve), but at most,
it is a doubt.
On the contrary, driving through an Arab
village poses a real and existing threat,
which one must avoid by halachic means.
Therefore, an example would be a reporter
who walks into such a village, violating this
prohibition.
Distinction between Danger for Most and
Danger for Few:
(חו״מ ח״ב סימן עו) Feinstein Moshe Rabbi
offers a bit different approach; he emphasizes
a distinction between activities that pose
danger to the majority, warranting caution
and refraining, and those where most
individuals are safe. In instances where the
majority remains unaffected, the approach
of “Shomer Petaim” (relying on the
presumption of safety) can be taken. For
instance, consuming fatty meat or very spicy
foods may be harmful to some but not to
most; in such cases, one may eat and trust
that they will be safe. Conversely, engaging
in activities that are generally harmful, such
as a diabetic consuming sugary item, should
be avoided. Since such actions are dangerous
for the majority with that condition, one
cannot rely on the assumption that all will be
fine.Accordingly, one needs to assess
whether traveling to Israel is safe for the
majority, and the answer is affirmative. The
majority of people in Israel are safe.
We still need to inquire about the leniency

applied in places where the risk level is low.
Normally, we adhere to the principle of “safek
nefashot lekula,” meaning that even if the
danger is low, we must take all necessary
precautions and even violate the Sabbath in a
scenario where there might be a risk, even if
it’s low.
Rav Elchanan Wasserman (,שיעורים קובץ
קלו כתובות (asserts that the principle of “safek
nefashot lekula” does not apply to one’s
normal way of life. This means that one may
continue living normally without changing the
course of life even if there is a minor risk
involved. However, if the risk becomes visible
and real, precautions must be taken in any
event.
Rav Elchanan Wasserman explains that one
may go about his life without excessive worry,
relying on Hashem to protect him. Any action
that is part of our daily routine doesn’t need to
be stopped unless there is a sudden imminent
danger. However, when we want to do
something out of the norm, that is when one
needs to assess the risk.
To comprehend this, it’s crucial to
acknowledge that virtually every action in life
involves some level of risk. For instance,
driving has the potential for accidents, walking
in the street may expose us to potential attacks,
and even staying in a building carries the risk
of it collapsing. Nevertheless, we do not live
in constant fear because we recognize that
Hashem controls the world, and if harm
befalls us, it is by His decree. However, this
understanding does not grant permission to
deliberately enter dangerous places, relying
solely on the belief that Hashem will save us.
In such instances, it is considered tempting
fate, as it implies letting nature take its course,
potentially leading to harm.
Summarizing the above, it appears permissible
to travel to Israel when people are leading a
normal way of life without excessive worry
about potential danger. However, this does not
grant permission to walk through placed
which aren’t as safe, such as Arab quarters in
Jerusalem or visit Hebron, where the danger is
greater.
Another aspect worth noting is the unclear
safety comparison between being in cities like
New York, where there are Arabs in every
corner, and Israel. In such cases, moving from
one potentially dangerous area to another may
not significantly alter the level of risk.