Daf Ditty Eruvin 45

"Snow was falling, so much like stars filling the dark trees that one could easily imagine its reason for being was nothing more than prettiness.”

― Mary Oliver

MISHNA: With regard to a person who was sitting along the road on Shabbat eve toward nightfall, unaware that he was within the city’s Shabbat limit, and when he stood up after Shabbat had already commenced, he saw that he was near the town, i.e., within its limit, since he had not intended to acquire his place of residence in the town, he may not enter it, but rather he measures two thousand cubits from his place; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He may enter the town. Rabbi Yehuda said: It once happened that Rabbi Tarfon entered a town on Shabbat without intention from the beginning of Shabbat to establish residence in the city.

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: It once happened that Rabbi Tarfon was walking along the way on Shabbat eve, and night fell upon him, and he spent the night outside the town. In the morning, cowherds who came to graze their cattle outside the town found him and said to him: Master, the town is before you; enter. He entered and sat in the study hall and taught the entire day. This indicates that one is permitted to enter.

MISHNA: With regard to one who was sleeping along the road on Shabbat eve and did not know that night had fallen, he has two thousand cubits in each direction; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who maintains that knowledge and awareness are not necessary for one to acquire residence, but rather, a person’s presence in a given location establishes residence there.

But the Rabbis say: He has only four cubits, as since he did not knowingly acquire residence, he did not establish a Shabbat limit. Rabbi Eliezer says: He has only four cubits total and he is in the middle of them, i.e., he has two cubits in each direction.

And according to this understanding, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri should by right have disagreed with the Rabbis even about utensils that were left in the field, i.e., that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, ownerless utensils can be moved two thousand cubits in each direction. And the reason that they disagreed about a person is to convey the far-reaching nature of the stringent ruling of the Rabbis, that although there is room to say: Since a person who is awake acquires for himself two thousand cubits, he also acquires them if he is sleeping, the mishna nonetheless teaches us that the Rabbis did not accept this argument, and this is why the dispute is taught specifically with respect to a person.

Rav Yosef said: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from the following baraita: Rain that fell on the eve of a Festival has two thousand cubits in each direction, meaning that one is permitted to carry the rainwater within a radius of two thousand cubits. But if the rain fell on the Festival itself, it is like the feet of all people, as it did not acquire residence, and consequently one is permitted to carry this water wherever he is permitted to walk.

Abaye sat and recited this tradition. Rav Safra said to Abaye: Perhaps we are dealing with rain that fell near a city, and the inhabitants of that city had it in mind, and that is why it acquires two thousand cubits in each direction.

MISHNAH: The Mishnah records a dispute regarding the designation of a city as a person’s residence when at the beginning of Shabbos he did not realize he was within its techum. 4) An expanded version of R’ Yehudah’s proof.

5 A Baraisa is cited that contains a more detailed version of R’ Yehudah’s proof as well as the response of others to that proof.

MISHNAH: A dispute is recorded regarding the consequences for a person who fell asleep before Shabbos began without designating his place of residence for Shabbos. Additionally, issues related to overlapping residences are discussed.

The Mishnah discusses a case in which a person did not know he was within the Techum of a city when Shabbos arrived.

Rebbi Meir says that he does not have the Techum of the city, since he did not intend that the city should be his residence, and therefore he has only 2,000 Amos in each direction. Rebbi Yehudah says that since he indeed was within the Techum of the city when Shabbos arrived, he has the same Techum as a resident of the city.

because no מא ו ת holds that the sleeping person is granted 2000 ירונ ןב ןנחוי ' ר Rava asks whether – התיבש נוק י ן רקפה יצפח and therefore, he would also hold - חת ו ם intention is necessary to acquire a .of their own, even though there is nobody to have intent for them חת ו ם ownerless objects have a

because intent to be חת ו ם since a sleeping person is NOT granted a , מכח י ם According to the acquire a יצפח רקפה יא ן נוק י ן התיבש - IS necessary, cannot certainly objects ownerless בש י הת וק הנו .of their own חת ו םוח

because מא ו ת s opinion that a sleeping person is granted 2000‘ ירונ ןב ןנחוי ' ר OR - We could explain even חת ו ם Since he is capable of intent when awake, he can acquire a ליאוה ו רוענ הנק ןשי ימנ הנק - ,ownerless objects - התיבש ינוק ן יא ן רקפה יצפח However , 'ר ןנחוי ןב ירונ while asleep. that agree would .of their own, because there is no capability of intent at all חת ו ם do not acquire a

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:1

1 https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

7 If someone fell asleep while traveling on Friday afternoon and wakes up to find that Shabbat has already begun, the hakhamim rule that he is limited to just his immediate four amot, since he did not intend to establish his place for Shabbat there. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that he can walk the full 2,000 amot in any direction, since he does not believe that it is necessary to establish Shabbat residency with specific intent. The discussion of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri’s position leads to questions about what the ruling is with regard to inanimate objects, as well. Does an ownerless object “establish residency” – thus limiting it for use in a specific area – or not?

Rav Yosef tries to answer this question by quoting a baraita that discusses rainfall. Rain that fell on the eve of a Festival has two thousand cubits in each direction, meaning that one is permitted to carry the rainwater within a radius of two thousand cubits. But if the rain fell on the Festival itself, it is like the feet of all people, as it did not acquire residence, and consequently one is permitted to carry this water wherever he is permitted to walk.

The problem raised by several rishonim is that, in the case of rainfall on Yom Tov, it is likely that the rain, which originated in another place entirely, should be limited to its immediate surroundings, since it left its original tehum.

Some respond by arguing that the rules about leaving one’s established boundaries and becoming limited to four cubits of space only make sense when discussing a person who has the ability to make conscious decisions and choose his area of residence for Shabbat.

Such a person, who established a place for himself and left it, or did not establish it at all, can be limited by his decision. Rain – an unintelligent object – cannot make decisions or choose where its Shabbat will take place.

It is, therefore, bound only by the limits of the person who discovers it and wants to make use of it.

Another explanation is that, while in the clouds, rain is in constant motion, and it is impossible to discuss “establishing a Shabbat place” with regard to something that is moving.

Therefore, when it reaches the earth we cannot try to impose independent tehum limitations on it.

Elliot Goldberg writes:2

The demanding pace of Daf Yomi sometimes makes it hard to notice the seams between the layers of rabbinic literature. But the juxtaposition of two teachings on today’s daf provides an opportunity to pause and take notice.

The Mishnah tells us of a rabbinic dispute in a case where someone was caught out of town when Shabbat begins and only notices after nightfall that there is a town nearby.

2 Myjewishlearning.com

8 According to Rabbi Meir, such a person is forbidden from entering the town on Shabbat because they had not intended to establish a residence there on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says the person is allowed to enter the town. He bases this opinion on precedent: Rabbi Tarfon, a leading sage of an earlier generation, was once in such a situation and entered the town on Shabbat even though he had no prior intention of establishing his Shabbat residence there.

The Mishnah does not describe the case of Rabbi Tarfon in detail, but we learn more from a baraita that is related in the Gemara.

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: It once happened that Rabbi Tarfon was walking along the way on Shabbat eve, and night fell upon him, and he spent the night outside the town. In the morning, cowherds who came to graze their cattle outside the town found him and said to him: Master, the town is before you; enter. He entered and sat in the study hall and taught the entire day. This indicates that one is permitted to enter.

The other rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Do you bring proof from there? Perhaps he had it in mind the day before to acquire residence in the city, or perhaps the study hall was subsumed within his Shabbat limit.

The fuller version of the story demonstrates that Rabbi Tarfon did not intend to establish a residence in the town on Shabbat -- after all, he went to bed outside the town. And it implies that he was not aware of the town’s proximity until the cowherds pointed it out. These details make clear that Rabbi Tarfon was in the same situation we find in the Mishnah. The expanded story supports the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

But the final section of the baraita casts doubt on this by citing two alternate explanations. Perhaps Rabbi Tarfon had in fact intended to establish his residence in the town on Shabbat. Or perhaps the study hall was within the 2,000-cubit limit one is permitted to travel outside a town on Shabbat. In bringing these alternate explanations, the baraita ultimately weakens Rabbi Yehuda’s position by undermining the precedent that supports it.

It is traditionally believed the baraitas date from the period after the Mishnah was codified and help to clarify mishnaic teachings or present different resolutions to rabbinic disputes. But recent scholarship has begun to suggest that baraitas actually pre- date the Mishnah. If that is the case, we would read this passage of Talmud rather differently.

Rather than adding details to explain Rabbi Yehuda’s use of the Rabbi Tarfon anecdote to support his position, a pre-mishnaic baraita would suggest that the fuller version of

9 the story was known in rabbinic circles. The Mishnah could leave out the details because the rabbis were capable of filling them in for themselves. The absence of the last section in the Mishnah, which records the dissenters from Rabbi Yehuda’s view, would then be revealed as an editorial choice: the editor of the Mishnah favored Rabbi Yehuda’s position and left out arguments that would undermine it.

It is worth noting that despite the fact that the Gemara resurfaces these arguments, the authority granted to the Mishnah by later authorities leads them to rule according to Rabbi Yehuda in this matter. Which is good news if you find yourself stranded on the outskirts of a town when Shabbat arrives. Even if you didn’t mean to spend the night there, you can!

בוט י םו Rain that falls before םימשג ודריש ברעמ י םו בוט שי םהל םיפלא א המ לכל ר ו ח - ;says רב י י את The at the point where it was בש י הת ק ו נ ה and is רקפה The rainwater is . מא ו ת of 2000 חת ו ם acquires a of opinion ' ןנחוי ןב ירונ ר .and must , מכח י ם collected. This obviously cannot be reconciled with the the reflect

10 The Gemara asks: Let the water acquire residence in the clouds, where it was when the Festival began, and its limit should be measured from there. Since the baraita taught that the water is like the feet of all people, if so, resolve from here another dilemma, and say that there is no prohibition of Shabbat limits above ten handbreadths, and one is permitted to travel more than two thousand cubits above this height.

For if there is a prohibition of Shabbat limits above ten handbreadths, let the water acquire residence in the clouds.

The Gemara rejects this argument: Actually, I can say to you: There is a prohibition of Shabbat limits even above ten handbreadths, and the water does not acquire residence in the clouds because it is absorbed in the clouds. Since water does not exist in its usual state within the clouds, but rather takes on a different form, it does not acquire residence there.

11 Rather I would say to you that the laws of Techumim do apply above ten handbreadths, and the water is fully absorbed in the clouds, and is not considered to be in existence at the onset of Yom Tov.

If so it would certainly be considered Nolad (newly born), and be forbidden to handle on Yom Tov. Rather, the water in the clouds is constantly moving and is not considered to have acquired a Techum until it ceases to move.

The Geonim deduce from this passage that rain that falls on Shabbos and Yom Tov is not considered nolad and is not muktzeh.

This ruling is cited by early authorities, as well as by the Mishnah Berurah, and is accepted by other later Poskim.

Note must be made of the apparent position of the Pri Megadim, who seems to prohibit the use of rain that falls on Shabbos and Yom Tov. However, numerous authorities challenge this position. When asked whether snow is muktzeh,

Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank responded that whether the snow fell before Shabbos or during Shabbos it should be no different than rain, and therefore not be considered muktzeh.

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and others similarly opined that snow is not muktzeh.

However, Rav Moshe Feinstein ruled that snow is muktzeh on Shabbos, and cannot be compared to rain which is permitted. In his responsum, Rav Feinstein does not explain this forbiddance.

Elsewhere, though, it is reported in the name of Rav Feinstein that snow is muktzeh because snow is not commonly used, and cannot even be considered food for animals

Snow on Shabbat

Reb Dov Linzer writes:3

Muktzeh: Rain, even if it falls on Shabbat, is not muktzeh or nolad because it is already present, to som:e degree, in the clouds (See our daf Eiruvin 46a, Shulkhan Arukh OH 338:8 and Mishne Brurah, no.30). The consensus of the poskim is that this applies to snow as well (see, for example, Shmirat Shabbat 16:44, n.110 and 15:36 in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach). Rav Moshe disagrees and states that snow is nolad, unlike rain (Iggrot Moshe OH 5:22, no. 37). We rule in accordance with the consensus position.

Snowballs and Snowmen: As snow is not muktzeh, one may pick up and throw snow on Shabbat. However, one may not make snowballs or snowmen as this is a form of building a new object (boneh bi’keilim—which is forbidden when one makes something from scratch). Although the snowball has a very short life-span, building even an impermanent object is forbidden at least on

3 https://library.yctorah.org/lindenbaum/snow-on-shabbat/

13 a rabbinic level (see Shabbat 146b, Beitzah 32b and Rambam, Laws of Shabbat 23:6). However, throwing a snowball made before Shabbat is permitted and not considered to be a form of deconstructing (soter) (see Shmirat Shabbat, ibid, n. 109, in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach, who compares this to tearing open a package, or rather, destroying something that is intended to be destroyed).

It should be noted that Rav Moshe Stern (Be’er Moshe 6:30) rules that it is permissible for children under the age of Bar and Bat Mitzvah to make snowballs although he absolutely forbids making snowmen (and by extension, snow forts). He argues that making snowballs is not boneh as one is not actually making something new and it is also something highly impermanent, made with the intent to be destroyed. Nevertheless, once the child is Bar or Bat Mitzvah age he forbids making snowballs, because in the process of making the snowball one squeezes the snow and produces water, which is a prohibited act (see SA OH 320:11). He is presumably less concerned with this prior to the age of Bar or Bat Mitzvah, since there is some debate among the poskim as to whether and under what conditions such squeezing is forbidden (see MB no. 37, and in Beiur Halakha, s.v. Yizaher, in the name of Magen Avraham).

I am unconvinced that Rav Stern has eliminated the concern of boneh here, but regardless, I would agree that one need not prevent children under Bar and Bat Mitzvah age from making snowballs and having a snowball fight on Shabbat, given that it is not so clear cut whether this is actually a form of boneh. Children are often very excited about freshly fallen snow, and prohibiting them from making snowballs can serve to make Shabbat feel onerous to them. To reiterate, this only applies to making snowballs. One should not allow children to make snowmen and snow forts as this is unquestionably an act of boneh.

Snow Angels and Writing in Snow: One cannot make snow angels and certainly not write in the snow as this is a form of writing (even a more temporary form writing, such as using a finger to draw in sand or drawing with liquid on a table, is forbidden, see SA OH 340:4). Similarly, one may not write in the frost on a window with one’s finger (Mishne Brurah, ibid., no. 20).

14 Crushing snow and ice: A person may not squeeze snow or crush ice to turn it into water as that is making something new (SA OH 320:9, and MB, no. 33). However, one is permitted to crush ice into smaller pieces (see 320:10). A person should also be careful to not rub snow between her hands as a way of washing since she will be turning it into water in the process (SA OH 320:11).

Walking on Snow: It is permissible to walk on snow even though it will crush the snow and produce water (SA OH 320:9). This is permitted even if the bottom of the shoes make an impression in the snow (Yabia Omer, OH 5:28), since this “writing” in the snow is two degrees removed from what the Torah forbids: one, the writing is not permanent, and two, it is done in an unusual manner. In addition, it is being done unintentionally and without any interest in the outcome (eino mitkaven, psik reisah di’lo ichpat lei).

Sledding: Technically, it is not a violation of Shabbat to go sledding on Shabbat, assuming that there is an eruv. One crushes or compacts the snow just as one does when walking. Similarly, the grooves created by the sled are similar to the impressions left by one’s shoes when walking, which is permitted. However, sledding may fall into the category of uvda di’chol, weekday activity. How do we evaluate this? If one uses a great deal of exertion, it might be a problem (however, it might not, see Tur OH 301 in the name of Sefer HaMitzvot; SA OH 301:2, and MB no. 5).

If one is totally immersed to the extent that one forgets or loses the sense that it is Shabbat, then it certainly is uvda di’chol and should not be done. One must be mindful of the concern raised earlier: telling children that they cannot play in freshly fallen snow can make Shabbat feel onerous and breed resentment. Sledding does not have any of the halakhic concerns that exist in regards to making snowballs, and from a halakhic point of view, it is certainly the more preferable option of the two activities. In the right context, sledding for fun may be allowed. Because context is critical, it is advisable to discuss any particular case with a halakhic authority.

It is permissible to use a sled to transport small children to shul, especially if there are no reasonable alternatives.

15 Safety concerns – Sanding and Salting: On Shabbat, it is permissible to put salt or sand on snow or ice. From a halakhic standpoint, sanding is better than salting, as salting will cause the snow to melt whereas sanding will not. Nevertheless, one may salt if necessary. Although one may not crush snow to produce water, there is a debate whether one may act in a way that causes snow to melt if he does not directly crush it.

Mishne Brurah seems inclined to be lenient, especially in cases of need (see MB OH 320:41, and also MB 318:107), and most cases of salting fall into this category. If there is any concern that someone might slip and hurt himself, you are not only permitted but obligated to prevent possible falls. Sand that has been purchased for this purpose is not muktzeh as it has been designated for use. In cases of real safety concerns one may use any sand even if it is muktzah (see Rema, OH 308:6).

Shoveling Snow: Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Har Tzvi, Tal Oros, Soter) rules that if snow has significantly hardened, shoveling may be considered a form of boneh (making a path) or soter (deconstructing of the present snow), and one should be strict in such cases. Even if the snow has not hardened, we generally do not do activities on Shabbat that require exertion (tircha). However, such activities are allowed for the sake of a mitzvah, such as getting to shul, or if there is any danger or risk by leaving the walk not shoveled. In such circumstances, one may shovel the snow, provided it has not hardened. All of this refers to shoveling a sidewalk or driveway. Shoveling off dirt or grass raises other concerns, such as smoothing out the ground below.

Removing Ice and Snow on Shabbos

Rabbi Jack Abramowitz writes:4

4 https://outorah.org/p/47706/

According to most authorities, rain water is not muktza. If rain falls on Shabbos, it is not prohibited as nolad (something newly created) because the moisture was already present before Shabbos, in the clouds. Snow is essentially just cold, crystallized rain, so according to most opinions, clean snow is not muktza (see Talmud Eiruvin 45b-46a). The definition of “clean” for our purposes is that, once melted, the snow would be suitable for a person to wash with or for an animal to drink (see Mishnah Brurah 338:30).

A significant dissenter in this matter is Rav Moshe Feinstein ztz”l, who considered snow to be muktza because, unlike previous generations who might have melted snow for water, we really have no use for it. Additionally, while rain that falls on Shabbos is not considered nolad, Rav Moshe considered snow that falls on Shabbos to be nolad. This is because, while we may perceive rain to already exist in the clouds, such is not our perception of snow. (See Iggros Moshe OC 5 22:37.) Even though snow may not be muktza according to most opinions, shoveling it on Shabbos is still generally prohibited for a variety of reasons. Among these are the exertion involved (tircha), the status of shoveling as a weekday activity (uvdin d’chol) and the prohibition against things that are disgraceful to the nature of Shabbos (zilzul Shabbos). (MB 333:1 explains the concepts tircha and uvdin d’chol; see Iggros Moshe OC 4:60 for more on zilzul Shabbos.)

Melting ice and snow on Shabbos is permitted if done passively and prohibited if done actively (OC 320:9). In particular, one is not permitted to squeeze or crush snow or ice in order to extract water; this is called risuk and it is a derivative of s’chitah (the melacha of extracting juice from fruit; see OC 320:11). For those who permit salting ice on Shabbos, the commercial salt sold for this purpose is a kli shemelachto l’heter – something whose intended use is a Shabbos-permitted activity (see the example of ashes put aside for permitted uses in OC 308:38); for those who prohibit salting ice on Shabbos, such salt ismuktza. (Even those who prohibit salting ice on Shabbos generally permit it if the ice poses a public hazard, as we will soon see.)

17 There is also an opinion that breaking ice off of a walkway might constitute the melacha ofsoseir (demolishing). While such may not be the halachic consensus, Rav Zvi Pesach Frank did differentiate on this basis between removing soft snow that has not yet frozen and snow that has already become attached to a surface, as he was concerned that the latter might present an issue of soseir. Therefore, there may be greater room for leniency when it comes to newly-fallen snow than there is to an iced-over sidewalk. (See OC 320:10, Magen Avraham 320:15 and MB 320:36 for examples of dissenting views regarding breaking ice as soseir.) Let’s say that ice or snow on the sidewalk presents a real public hazard. (It should be noted that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ztz”l defined “public” for such purposes as any group of three or more people. This need not include strangers; it could even be limited to the members of one’s own household who need to use the walkway.) In such a case, the best course of action would be to have a non-Jew salt the ice. This would be permitted even in a Biblical-level r’shus harabim (public thoroughfare). (A Biblical-level r’shus harabim is an uncommon occurrence in residential areas; the issue might really only arise in the most metropolitan of settings.) In the absence of a non-Jew, assuming that the area in question is not an actual r’shus harabim, most authorities would permit a Jew to salt the ice himself. This is because the Sages did not apply their various safeguards to the sanctity of Shabbos in situations of risk to the public (see OC 308:18). In such a case, most authorities rule that one may salt the ice in the usual manner; it is not necessary to do so with a shinui(deviation).

If there is so much snow that it is difficult to walk, then one may have a non-Jew shovel the snow manually, though not with a snow blower. If possible, one should arrange before Shabbos for the non-Jew to shovel should it be necessary. If one did not make such arrangements before Shabbos, he may ask a non-Jew to shovel on Shabbos itself but he may not discuss the financial arrangements until after Shabbos (see OC 306:6). If a non-Jew is not available to shovel, the general halachic consensus is that is still preferable for a Jew not to shovel on Shabbos if at all avoidable. Some authorities permit a person to walk on the sidewalk and to kick the snow aside with his foot as he goes, while others prohibit this. (See OC 316:11 and MB 316:51 for halachic precedents.) If salting is insufficient, sweeping the snow aside using a broom might be a halachically-preferable alternative to shoveling.

According to those who do permit shoveling when necessary, a snow-shovel is classified as a kli shemelachto l’heter (utensil whose intended use is a Shabbos-permitted activity) and is therefore not muktza. A regular shovel, whose intended use is to dig in the dirt, is a kli shemelachto l’issur (utensil whose intended use is a Shabbos-prohibited activity). However, a kli shemelachto l’issur is permitted to be handled for a permitted purpose (such as using a hammer to open walnuts). Accordingly, a regular shovel may be used if a snow shovel is unavailable. All of the above only refers to shoveling or sweeping paved walkways. It is not permitted to shovel or sweep dirt paths because of the prohibition of leveling the ground (ashvuyei gumos), which is part of the melacha of choreish (plowing).

We have not addressed the issue of hotzaah (carrying) so far because carrying in a Biblical- level r’shus harabim is prohibited in any event. We have already said that if circumstances are so dire that a Jew is required to salt the ice himself, the rabbinic safeguards to Shabbos do not apply; this includes the rabbinic prohibition against carrying in a karmelis (the “quasi-public” domain). In a situation that is not a public hazard, there might be leniencies to have a non-Jew shovel your walk but only if one is in an eiruv; this is all the more so for those authorities who might permit a Jew to shovel personally.

However, asking a non-Jew to clear an area that would require mechanical assistance, such as a snow blower or a snow plow, presents a problem of amira l’akum (the prohibition against asking a non-Jew to perform melacha on Shabbos).

So can one shovel on Shabbos? Optimally, it would be best to avoid when possible. Depending on the degree of hazard presented, it might be permitted to engage a non-Jew or perhaps even to do so oneself, though authorities may disagree as to what poses sufficient hazard.

Yukionna – A Japanese Snow Spirit In Japan it is said that when a woman dies from the cold she can become a yukionna, a type of snow entity with magic powers over the cold. But the power has its price as a yukionna is a type of youkai. This means that the woman becomes a kind of demon which will steal the souls of those whom she bewitches. In Japan, clothes are made to close left over right. This is for both men and women because the only clothes that close right over left are those designed for the dead . Thus white kimonos that close right over left are destined for the dead. An old belief states that if a living person wears clothes closing right over left than the individual will attract misfortune upon himself or herself.

When it comes to snow there are a lot of myths that come with it. For many people these myths have become gospel but the simple fact is that they are not true or are nothing more than urban legend.

In an ice cold mountain of Greenland there was a war between Zeus and the goddess of ice, Jasmin. Jasmin was tall and skinny with very long, blonde beautiful hair and she also wore a white satin grown all the time. If you made Jasmin mad she would make a ice storm but if you made her happy she would do you a favour.

One day, Apollo asked Jasmin to make a huge ice storm because Demester was sad in the winter because he wanted to make it look beautiful in winter. But Apollo wanted the sun to reflect off the ice and make everything sparkle. Zeus found out what Jasmin was doing he told her not to make an ice storm or he would punish her.

Jasmin decided to make an ice storm as she loved to make people happy. She heard that Zeus was very angry with her so she ran and hid in the Mountains.

Zeus found Jasmine hiding in the mountains but instead of punishing her he decided to go to war. Zeus made a massive storm with lighting, dark storm clouds, high winds, lots of heavy rain and loud thunder. The people of the lands did not know what was happing and became very scared.

As the war kept going on Zeus kept the rain and Jasmin kept making ice. Eventually the ice and rain mixed to make slush. Then the slush kept freezing and it started to make freezing rain. When freezing rain started to come down it was just enough to make snow.

Zeus didn’t like snow because it was dangerous for the people of the lands. Athena, Zeus daughter then went to see what was happing and why Zeus was mad. After she found out she looked down at the people of the lands and the gods and goddesses thought about the snow. Since Athena was Zeus favourite daughter, getting him to stop the storm wasn’t very hard.

The people of the lands loved it because it was lots of fun to play even though the snow was covering the very beautiful flowers. They all agreed that the snow was very beautiful, so the decide that every year Zeus would make rain and Jasmin would make ice which mixed together, would make snow.

When one thinks of myths you think of the Greeks and Romans. The Greeks believed that Snow was a white animal that was smart but became greedy. Snow was able to fly and decided one day to join the gods in the sky since he was intelligent and therefore was on the level of the gods. Unfortunately for Snow, Zeus saw him coming and hurled a lightning bolt at him shattering him

21 into a white powder which fell to Earth and blanketed the ground. As further punishment, Zeus would then pick Snow back up and drop him back down every year on that date.

One myth is that if the ground is too warm then snow cannot accumulate. This is wrong. Snow can accumulate as long as the air is cold enough for snow and it can accumulate in April and May when temperatures warm up so the ground temperature has very little to do with whether snow lays or not. Along the same lines there is no temperature that is too cold for snow. In theory as the air gets colder it gets drier and at some point it will become too cold to snow but that temperature is well below what we experience here on Earth.

Global Warming used to be the buzzword. That term was changed to Climate Change. Why? Snowfall actually increased in many places. The planet is warming but some of the snowiest winters on record have come within the past generation. Warmer air actually produces better conditions for snowfall, and heavy snowfall at that.

While the term blizzard is thrown around commonly by everyone from meteorologists to the general public it is very difficult to actually reach blizzard conditions. Those conditions are: sustained wind gusts over 35 mph, a visibility of ¼ mile or less and blowing or drifting snow all for 3 hours or more. Most storms lack the strong winds necessary but can meet the other criteria.

Oh, and then there is the legend that no two snowflakes are the same. This has never been scientifically proven, especially since it is impossible to go out and examine every single snowflake the world over but how many different crystalline shapes and structures can there be? One can wonder though!

22 Deeper meaning of Snow

Rabbi Boruch Leff writes:5

Rabbi Tzadok HaKohein of Lublin explains that there is a mystical klipah (barrier to holiness) called snow which is associated with the nation of Amalek, the Jews' arch-enemy. Amalek attacked the beleaguered Jewish people as they left Egypt, and God instructed us to remember this evil deed of Amalek, as they will always seek to harm the Jewish nation. (see Exodus 17:8-16; Deut. 25:17- 19)

In fact, the Hebrew word for snow -- sheleg -- has a numerical value (gematria) of 333 -- the same as the word shich'cha, which means forgetfulness. This seems to suggest that snow is not a vehicle for growth at all. And when we venture outside on a snowy day, we are surrounded by forgetfulness and Amalek. What could this possibly mean?

The Torah tells us to remember what Amalek did as we left Egypt because he "happened upon you (karcha) and attacked." (Deut. 28:17-18)

As Rashi explains, the Jews were compared to a hot, scalding bath of water, symbolizing their great passion for spiritual achievements as they left Egypt. But Amalek was willing to burn themselves by attacking the Jewish people with the aim of showing that the heat of inspiration will

5 https://www.aish.com/sp/k/48968661.html

23 not endure. By doing so, Amalek cooled off the tremendous fear that all of the other nations had for the Jews, giving them license to attack as well.

Amalek, we see, relates to cooling.

TWO SIDES OF PURGATORY

Rabbi Tzadok explains that Amalek is the force of the Yetzer Hara, the evil inclination that whispers continuously in our ear, "Who do you think you are? You aspire to become great? You'll never get there!" Amalek makes us "forget" (as in snow's gematria, mentioned earlier) that we can reach majestic levels, and cools us off and away from our path of service of God. The coldness of Amalek seeks to depress us and convince us that our spiritual energy and heat will quickly fade to despair.

When we describe a "cold personality," we refer to the lack of vitality, enthusiasm, and zest for life. Such a person approaches life in a pessimistic, morose way, and often knocks everything down, thinking that nothing good will ever happen. No significant, lofty heights can be reached. This is Amalek.

With a cold Amalekite attitude, the growth that we fought so hard to gain throughout the Jewish holiday period in the Spring and Summer months, can be lost to the deep freeze and the cold winter snow.

The battle against Amalek, one that lasts for all generations (see Deut. 23:17-19), has a plus side as well: to ensure that we do not lose our passion and excitement for Torah. We must continually strive to make our service of God dynamic. We must not let ourselves fall into the insidious trap of coldness and negativity. We should always think big and accomplish big things.

The Midrash (Tanchuma - Re'eh 13) emphasizes this point:

24 Chizkiyah said: There are 12 months of judgment for the wicked in purgatory (Gehenom). Six months are suffered in heat, and the other six months in cold. God first places them in the heat, and then puts them in the snow.

The Torah commentator Aitz Yosef (19th century Bialystok) explains that there are two distinct places of purgatory. "Gehenom of Fire" is a punishment for all sins that were done with passion and energy against God. "Gehenom of Snow" is designed for all sins that are due to laziness and lack of energy. In addition, the punishment of snow is given for all good actions done without zeal and excitement. The message: We must live with passion for the service of God, to avoid the Gehenom of Snow and Amalek's coldness.

THE DICHOTOMY

We have seen sources that describe snow as a symbol of lack of growth, and others that describe it as a positive, inspirational symbol for growth. How are we to bridge this dichotomy and contradiction?

As with many concepts in Judaism, we must refer back to the Garden of Eden, a major foundation of Jewish mysticism.

One of the disastrous effects of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit -- from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil -- was that good and evil became mixed and combined. Before the sin, a person could decide to be good or evil, because the two were clearly distinct. After the forbidden fruit, good and evil became mingled confusingly in all people and objects of the world. It became difficult to know clearly what is right and wrong.

This confusion gave rise to the unique human ability to rationalize almost anything. Thus, humanity's task from that moment onward became the sifting and separating of good from bad (known in Kabbalah as birrur). Our mission is to seek only the good, while eliminating the evil, and attach ourselves to purity in all things we encounter.

Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin offers an example of this challenge vis-a-vis the act of eating. If we eat with proper behavior and intent (in order to be healthy, to serve God) then we extract the holy elements from the food into our souls. If we eat merely to fill our stomachs in an animalistic fashion, we increase the potential for evil within us.

SEEING NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE

25 This concept of "seeking good while removing evil" applies to everything in the world -- including snow. Some verses in the Bible imply that snow is a negative force, while others indicate that snow is a positive one. Both are true, even simultaneously.

The question is how we relate to snow. Do we look at the superficial, hampering, destructive effects of snow, become discouraged and annoyed, and stop at that? If yes, then all we will see are snow's negative aspects. But if we allow ourselves to dig deeper, to uncover and sift the depth of what snow is, then we will touch the beautiful, holy and spiritual aspects of snow.

This is precisely the battle against the coldness of Amalek as well.

Snow may be a symbol of Amalek, but the Hebrew word ka'sheleg, which means "likesnow," [as in "ka'sheleg yalbinu" in Isaiah 1:18, which means "your sins will become white as snow"] is the gematria 353 -- the same as simcha, happiness.

Snow is a symbol of purity and holiness, but paradoxically within it lies the potential for evil. The Yetzer Hara knows how powerful and inspirational snow can be, and therefore has his stake in snow as well, trying to force people to view it only as negative.

The decision is ours. We can focus on the negatives of snow, become cynical in thinking like Amalek, or we can see the purity of God in snow.

So when those white flakes begin to fall, and a blizzard is on the way, let's fight cynicism and win the battle for positive attitudes. Let's stay away from cold, Amalekite snowball fights. And let's become holy "snowmen" instead.

The Snow Maiden is a character in Russian folktales. She is very beautiful and often depicted with snow white skin, deep sky-blue eyes and curly fair hair. She is known as ‘Snegurochka’ in Russian - ‘sneg’ being the Russian word for snow. She is the daughter of the immortal Gods, Father Frost and Mother Spring.

In the stories, she usually goes to live with humans to care for an elderly couple who have no children. In some stories, she grows to like a young man, but her heart is unable to know love. Mother Spring takes pity and gives her this ability, but as soon as she falls in love, her heart warms

27 her and she melts. In other stories she melts by coming in contact with fire or warmth. The tale of Snegurochka can often be seen beautifully depicted on hand-painted Russian crafts.

When was the story first written down?

The Snow Maiden first appeared in writing in the 19th century. It has been argued by some that the roots of this feminine character can be found in Slavic pagan beliefs; others argue that the character is not found in the early Slavic myths and the story may have originated from myths and folktales that were not of a Russian origin. Its actual origin is unknown because, before the mid- 19th century, there was very little interest in recording Russian folk beliefs.

It was not until the 1850s and 60s when a Russian folklorist, Alexander Nikolayevich Afanasyev, published a collection of eight volumes of folktales, based on an archive collection belonging to the Russian Geographic Society of Saint Petersburg, that interest started to grow.

He followed this by publishing another three volumes compiled between 1865 and 1869 containing over 600 stories. This book was called ‘The Poetic Outlook on Nature by the Slavs’. It was the largest folktale collection published by any one person in the world. One of the stories published in the second volume, in 1869, was that of Snegurochka. The story become even more popular in 1873 when the folktale was made into a play ‘The Snow Maiden’ for the Moscow Imperial Theatre. It was written by Aleksandr Ostrovsky, with music to accompany it by the popular Russian composer Tchaikovsky.

In 1878, another version was staged as a ballet by the composer Ludwig Minkus. The tale was also adapted into an opera by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, ‘The Snow Maiden: A Spring Fairy Tale’, in 1881. By this time the story had become very well known.

The Snow Maiden (subtitle: A Spring Fairy Tale) (Russian: Снегурочка–Весенняя сказка, romanized: Snegúrochka–Vesennyaya Skazka) is an opera in four acts with a prologue by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, composed during 1880–1881. The Russian libretto, by the composer, is based on the like-named play by Alexander Ostrovsky (which had premiered in 1873 with incidental music by Tchaikovsky). The first performance of Rimsky-Korsakov's opera took place at the Mariinsky Theatre, Saint Petersburg on 29 January 1882 (OS; 10 February NS) conducted by Eduard Nápravník. By 1898 it was revised in the edition known today. It remained the composer's own favorite work. The story deals with the opposition of eternal forces of nature and involves the interactions of mythological characters (Frost, Spring, Wood-Sprite), real people (Kupava, Mizgir'), and those in- between, i.e., half-mythical, half-real (Snow Maiden, Lel’, Berendey).

The composer strove to distinguish each group of characters musically, and several individual characters have their own associated leitmotifs. In addition to these distinctions, Rimsky-Korsakov characterized the townspeople particularly with folk melodies.

For a deeper understanding of this work from the composer's point of view, the reader is directed to his autobiography, as well as to his own incomplete analysis of the opera from 1905.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW1Mn-ysKdE