Unpacking the Iggerot: Smoking
Read more about “Unpacking the Iggerot” and see the archive of all past columns.
Unpacking the Iggerot: Smoking / Iggerot Moshe, Y.D., vol. 2, #49
Summarizing the Iggerot
In J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Fellowship of the Ring, the character Boromir laments “Is it not a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt for so small a thing?” Indeed, R. Feinstein’s initial 1963 responsum on smoking was but a few lines, yet it was the cause of much controversy and consternation within the halakhic and Jewish medical world. It is so brief, that it it is easy to translate and present it in fill:
Regarding smoking cigarettes, certainly since there is a risk of becoming ill from it, it would be commendable to be careful. But to [to go so far as to claim] that it is forbidden due to a [a glaring] danger—the Talmud in Shabbat (129b) and Nidda (31a) already state that “Since the multitudes have trampled over it, ‘the Lord protects the simple-hearted’ (Psalms 116:6).” Moreover, many Torah giants of the previous and current generation smoke. Therefore, even for those who wish to be stringent to account for potential danger, there would not be a violation of “placing a stumbling block” by extending a flame or match to one who smokes.
R. Feinstein asserts that the risks of smoking do not meet the standard of authentic danger. He proceeds to apply the concept of “The Lord protects the simple-hearted” which applies to matters that involve risk but do not quite reach the threshold of flagrant endangerment. He further notes that many Torah scholars have and still engage in smoking, which evidently demonstrates that his perception has been accepted among other rabbis. And finally, he relegates those who are risk-averse to the category of mahmirim, akin to those who are stringent in any other halakhic matter. For example, the same way one who keeps halav Yisrael may pass a bottle of halav stam to one who is not stringent in that regard, a non-smoker need not hesitate to provide a flame to one who is lenient and smokes.
Connecting the Iggerot
In 1981, R. Dr. Fred Rosner, a preeminent scholar of medical halakha, attempted to persuade R. Feinstein to update his stance on the issue (H.M., vol. 2, #76). Instead, R. Feinstein held his ground and offered a more elaborately reasoned response. He begins by reiterating the Talmudic application of “The Lord protects the simple-hearted,” likening smoking to eating unhealthy food. While Rambam in his Mishneh Torah (Deot, ch. 4) provides guidelines for a healthy lifestyle, R. Feinstein notes that he does not use the term “assur” (forbidden) to halakhically ban the consumption of a less than nutritious diet. He further dismisses Dr. Rosner’s experience with treating numerous lung-cancer patients as the result of availability heuristic (extrapolating based on the cases that come before him). Nonetheless, he does reiterate that it would be commendable to abstain from smoking. He warns that one should be wary of addiction and that a Torah lifestyle is generally consonant with minimizing the pursuit of pleasure and lust. And even if it is too late, so to speak, one should certainly not introduce this bad habit to his or her children.
R. Feinstein was, however, unconvinced that smoking should be permitted on Yom Tov, even with a transferred flame. He concedes that at this point (1984) it would be difficult to prevent the masses who had become accustomed to doing so (O.H., vol. 5, #34). We can surmise that while R. Feinstein was not deterred by considerations of popular opinion, to engage in an uphill battle in his final years when he was already ill on an issue that he was not firmly against was not a reasonable expenditure of his limited energy.
While R. Feinstein’s position on smoking tobacco was relatively soft, he made his negative stance against smoking marijuana abundantly clear. In a 1973 responsum (Y.D., vol. 3, #35), he unequivocally condemned the smoking of this narcotic. His main contention was that this substance has a deleterious effect on the state of one’s mental faculties, thereby negatively impacting his ability to learn Torah, pray, and perform mitzvot that require clear intention (kavvana). Moreover, marijuana represents a surrender to physical desire akin to the gluttonous nature of the Biblical rebellious son. There is something fundamentally wrong, even if the food or substance is technically kosher. R. Feinstein further buttresses his argument by noting the distress one’s parents will experience when learning of their child’s drug habit or addiction, thereby also violating the mitzva of honoring one’s parents. And finally, he invokes the Ramban’s iconic commentary on the verse “And you shall be holy,” as a catchall for ethical and dignified behavior, even that which is not explicitly mandated by the Torah. R. Feinstein is likely aware that he has not identified a smoking gun—an explicit verse or line in the Shulhan Arukh to prohibit marijuana. He instead resorts to invoking meta-halakhic considerations and relies on their collective quantitative power to persuade the reader.
Even within the topic of smoking tobacco, R. Feinstein issued a very significant qualification. While he believed that every individual had the halakhic right to decide if they wanted to engage in smoking, he condemned those who would, in effect, make that decision on another party’s behalf. In a 1980 responsum (H.M., vol. 2, #18) addressing a controversy that broke out at a certain kollel, R. Feinstein unequivocally gave preference to the non-smokers over the smokers. The smokers had no right to impose their habit on the other –denizens of the beit midrash even if it posed no direct health risk, but merely general distress. (The medical risk of “second-hand smoke” was not yet understood.) He adds that resultant harm would constitute “damage caused by one’s hands” rather than indirect harm. In theory, a beit din with semikha would be authorized to charge the smoker to pay restitution for any resultant harm or medical bills.
What emerges from these responsa is that despite R. Feinstein’s willingness to permit individuals to opt in to smoking, he forbade them from spreading the risk to other parties, whether it be one’s peers, co-workers, or children.
Reception to the Iggerot
R. Feinstein leaves us with some unanswered questions. One such aspect that remained unaddressed was how he would quantify and delineate the boundary between acceptable risk and obvious endangerment. R. Yitzchok Oratz (Nitei Ne’emanim [2010], 481) notes that in other areas of halakha such as insect inspections, we have different statistical categories such as Biblical majorities, mi’ut ha-matzui (a significant minority), and mi’ut she-aino matzui (insignificant minority). In R. Feinstein’s response to Dr. Rosner he does not seem to reckon with any of these potentially helpful classifications.
R. Eliezer Waldenberg, who is oftentimes a foil to R. Feinstein’s medical halakhic rulings, does not disappoint. In a responsum published in Tzitz Eliezer (vol. 15, #39), dated February 23, 1985, he remarked that the Surgeon General of the United States had just released staggering statistics about smoking’s health impact. Accordingly, R. Waldenberg asserts that there is no room for “The Lord protects the simple-hearted” in the face of near-certain danger.
About two years later, an issue of the journal HaPardes (61:6, Adar 5747) included some scathing responses on the topic. R. Yaakov Kalish from Brooklyn expressed exasperation at the lack of rabbinic will to protest the widespread smoking found in the Jewish community. He appended the words from the Talmudic account of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, “From the fact that the rabbis were silent, we can infer that they approved” (Gittin 56a). There was apparently an argument advanced by proponents of permitting smoking that the rabbis cannot issue “an edict that the majority of the community is unable to withstand.” However, contends R. Kalish, forbidding smoking is not some newfound mandate, but simply clarifying the pre-existing parameters of the Biblical imperative “and you shall be exceedingly careful to guard your life.”
Another response, written by a R. Dovid Shore goes so far as to argue that, under certain circumstances, heavy smoking halakhically constitutes suicide. He concludes by stating, “And for those who wish to receive further clarification on this matter, you may speak with a religious pulmonary specialist, Dr. Elimelech (Kenneth) Prager” and proceeds to provide his telephone number, clearly throwing down the gauntlet for anyone who may seek to prove him wrong.
The journal Kol HaTorah (vol. 69, p. 309) featured a public statement (circa 2004) made by several major rabbinic figures from the Haredi world in Israel, such as R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, R. Aharon Leib Shteinman, and R. Nissim Karelitz. The letter condemned smoking and forbade it in any public setting. It further declared that it would be prohibited for anyone who had not begun smoking to begin engaging in it.
Reflecting on the Iggerot
While many of the leaders of the Yeshiva world have publicly condemned and forbade smoking, it leaves us with a question: What would R. Moshe Feinstein say if he were alive today? Would these rabbis, many of whom viewed R. Feinstein as the leading halakhic authority of the previous generation, contend that he was mistaken? Perhaps they might suggest that the scientific consensus has shifted, while the analysis of the Iggerot Moshe based on the data available to him remained reasonable.
Such a tension can be sensed in a 1998 responsa of R. Ephraim Greenblatt (Rivevot Ephraim, vol. 8, #586), who echoed the sentiments we saw above that smoking is tantamount to committing suicide and that it was unfathomable to him how Rabbinic leadership neglected to exhort their students and followers against it. He signs off, “And may it be His will to remove the heart of stone from the Jewish people, and that they may internalize the danger, and perform the religious mandate of the Torah…” What is notably missing from his treatment are the responsa of R. Feinstein, his own teacher and mentor. In a postscript he slips in two citations of the Iggerot Moshe, sandwiched between several other sources. He clearly disagreed with R. Feinstein’s position, yet out of deference to his teacher, was also reluctant to do so head on.
Similarly torn, Dr. Fred Rosner (“Rabbi Moshe Feinstein’s Influence on Medical Halacha,” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 20 [Fall 1990]) reflected:
I still do not fully understand this reasoning and continue to press my personal views about the dangers of smoking and my conviction that it should be halachically prohibited. Nevertheless, I accept Rabbi Feinstein’s ruling unhesitatingly. He was my posek (rabbinic decisor). He was the posek for the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists. He was the posek hador, the rabbinic decisor for the entire Jewish world during the generation in which he lived. His written responsa and other writings are sacred and accepted as authoritative by all Jews.
R. Dr. Moshe Dovid Tendler, R. Feinstein’s son-in-law and advisor on scientific matters, published an essay in the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary’s Beit Yitzchak journal (5741-5742, p. 72) in which he unsurprisingly concludes similarly to his father-in-law’s 1981 responsum on smoking about the distinction between opting to smoke versus imposing second-hand smoke on others. In his later years, he was known to claim that had R. Feinstein been alive today and made aware of the clear medical consensus against smoking he would have amended his views accordingly. Yet, some (e.g., R. Oratz, Nitei Ne’emanim, p. 481) do not accept this assessment and contend that R. Feinstein had already possessed sufficient information by the time he wrote his later responsa in the 1980s. R. Dovid Spinrad reports that when he asked R. Dovid Feinstein about smoking on Yom Tov, he replied that his father’s ruling remained unmoved (Ha-Emek: Kovetz Chiddushei Torah Toronto, vol. 18, Nissan 5772). Yet, R. Boruch Moskowitz, author of Ve-Dibarta Bam, reports that R. Dovid Feinstein believed that his father would have indeed revised his views in light of the recent scientific literature (see Kovetz le-Torah ve-Hora’ah, 5772, p. 67; additional citations are collected by Makhon u-Vakharta be-Hayyim).
As we have observed in some of our other columns, ascertaining what R. Feinstein would have said about any matter today becomes speculative, and at times, is reflective more of the one making the conjecture. In the front matter of R. Tendler and Dr. Rosner’s Practical Medical Halachah, there is a brief memoriam to R. Feinstein which is quite fitting here:
When R. Eliezer died, R. Akiva eulogized him thus: “I have many coins but there is no one to exchange them.” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 78a). Rashi explains this simile: “I have so many questions to ask, but with the passing of our rabbi, there is no one to answer them.”
Endnote: Notably, R. Feinstein makes the same analogy between smoking and consuming unhealthy food in a sermon deriding the pursuit of earthly desires, found in Darash Moshe (vol. 1, p. 276). For further sources on this topic, see Va-Yishma Moshe (p. 36), Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot (vol. 3, #354, and vol. 4, #115), She’ailat Rav (p. 92). Additional opinions and medical citations are collected in Nishmat Avraham (H.M., pp. 47-53). See also the statement issues by the Rabbinical Council of America, ““A Ruling of the Va’ad Halacha: The Prohibition of Smoking in Halacha.” My thanks to R. Abba Hillel Winiarz and Zvi Herzig for their contributions to the source material cited in this piece. The latter pointed out that there is a lesser known 1971 reply from R. Feinstein in the HaMeor journal (71:2) in which he appears to give greater credence to the potential risks of smoking than he does in his responsa published in Iggerot Moshe.
Regarding R. Feinstein’s responsum on marijuana, see Dr. Sharon Galper Grossman “It Is Legal and Everyone Is Using: Does Halakhah Permit Recreational Marijuana? Reassessment of Rav Moshe Feinstein’s Teshuvah,” Hakirah 30 (2021). Regarding the modern implications for smoking on Yom Tov, R. Michael J. Broyde and Avi Wagner write:
Two hundred years ago most poskim permitted smoking on Yom Tov because most people enjoyed smoking and they then thought smoking was a healthy activity. In that same era regular bathing or showering in hot water was not viewed as of benefit to all and was technologically difficult to do, and thus rabbinically prohibited on Yom Tov. Today in America, smoking is viewed as hazardous and is clearly not “of benefit to all”; on the other hand, daily showering is a normal activity. We have explored the halachic rationale for concluding that perhaps the normative halacha today might opt for prohibiting smoking on Yom Tov while permitting showering (“Halachic Responses to Sociological and Technological Change,” Journal of Halacha & Contemporary Society 39 [2000]).
Moshe Kurtz serves as the Assistant Rabbi of Agudath Sholom in Stamford, CT, is the author of Challenging Assumptions, and hosts the Shu”T First, Ask Questions Later
Prepare ahead for our next column (March 13) on “Pink Pistols and Pikuah Nefesh” / Iggerot Moshe, O.H., vol. 4, #75:3.