An argument from “Shomer p’sayim Hashem”
(“Hashem protects the simple”)
Even if we acknowledge: 1. our responsibility to be involved, 2. reducing emissions is an appropriate response to the danger, one might invoke this halachic principle, based on a verse in Tehillim, to argue that doing so is not necessary.
The verse describes a sentiment of faith that although human beings are vulnerable, limited in their understanding and unable to ultimately control their destiny, nevertheless they have Hashem to protect them. This seems ostensibly to be a fitting response to climate change. We, simple mankind, are faced with a phenomenon which we unwittingly brought upon ourselves and are now struggling to address. Following the lead of the Psalmist, we would advance with faith, confident that Hashem is on our side and will protect us from the problems that we have inadvertently caused. Although, that does not necessarily imply passivity on our part.
However, this principle takes on a different guise when raised in the Gemara. Various scenarios are discussed whereby a person might be engaging in activities which expose them to a certain level of risk to their life. Ordinarily exposing oneself to such a risk would be forbidden. Nevertheless, once the activity has become widespread, the Gemara rules that they are allowed to engage in that activity because ‘Hashem protects the simple’.
So, for example, blood-letting, which was a common therapeutic practice in Talmudic times, was understood to entail some level of danger if performed on a Friday. Nevertheless, the Gemara says that “since the public have become accustomed to doing this, ‘Hashem protects the simple’”. Why should public norms make a difference? Rashi explains that because it was necessary to eat well after blood-letting and poor people could only afford such a meal on Shabbat, they became accustomed to blood-letting on a Friday despite the risk.
What we see from this, is that this principle allows people to take certain risks when there is a broadly accepted need and rely on Hashem to protect us. If so, one might want to argue that given the level of our dependency on fossil fuels and the major challenges involved in reducing our usage of them, we can take a “business as usual” approach to greenhouse gas emissions and Hashem will protect us.
Understanding the principle
Let’s try and understand the logic behind this principle. After all, are we not commanded, “you shall protect your lives greatly” (Devarim 4:15), requiring us to avoid life-threatening activities? Furthermore, our Sages tell us that “ein somchin al haness" (“We don’t rely on miracles”). So why would we be allowed to rely on Hashem to protect us while undertaking risk?
The point is that normal living, by its very nature, entails risk. One cannot cross the road, get into a car or give birth without exposing oneself to risk. So it’s not a simple thing to say that because we must protect our lives, we are therefore not allowed to expose ourselves to any risk whatsoever. On the other hand, one shouldn’t expose oneself to unnecessary risk. Where do we draw the line? The halacha teaches that society should set the barometer regarding what risks are an unavoidable part of life and acceptable to be exposed to. Under those circumstances we can then assume that Hashem has sanctioned exposure to that risk and we can rely upon Him to protect us.
Based on this reasoning, we can understand that this principle will not apply to exposing oneself to just any sort of risk. There are different approaches among the halachic authorities as to how to formulate the risks to which one may expose themselves. Some state that the principle only applies to risks that will severely disrupt normal living, but not where the risk can be avoided, in which case no protection is provided. Some argue that the principle only allows exposure to remote and uncommon risks, but certainly not to significant risks, as that would be relying on miracles. Others claim that protection is only given to those who don’t know the risks. Many point out that the principle does not encourage us to expose ourselves to these risks, only that it permits us to, but that ideally one should avoid doing so if possible.
Given these limitations, it’s difficult to find support for the idea that climate change cannot happen if we adopt a “business as usual” approach. Even though changing our practices will conceivably disrupt normal living significantly, when faced with climate impacts that endanger lives, some that are already taking place in front of our eyes, with worse expected to follow, it seems untenable to argue that the halacha would allow us to put our heads in the sand.
