Snow Removal on Shabbat

Snow Removal on Shabbat Rabbi Dovid Sukenik Introduction In regions of the world where snow falls regularly, residents are accustomed to the chore of snow removal and approach the task with barely a thought. When snow falls on Friday or Shabbat, however, hilchot Shabbat make this ordinary act far more complex. This essay will explore various methods of snow removal as they pertain to Shabbat.1 Muktzeh The poskim debate whether or not snow is muktzeh. Some poskim2 maintain that snow is muktzeh. One source for this opinion is a comment of Tosafot,3 who write, based 1 In cases in which leaving snow or ice on the ground would pose an immediate danger, the snow may be removed, as pikuach nefesh overrides Shabbat. This scenario is not very common, however. The scope of this article is limited to cases in which there is no imminent danger. 2 Pri Megadim Peticha Hakolelet to Hilchot Muktzeh #29, R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Moshe 5:22:37 (see Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat, p. 165, nt. 10 who quotes R. Feinstein as saying that it is muktzeh machmat gufo, R. Shimon Eider Halachos of Shabbos, Dosh, nt. 331, says that R. Feinstein maintains that snow is not muktzeh), R. Yisroel Belsky, Halachically Speaking vol. 3 issue 15. Sefer Shalmei Yehonatan, vol. 3, Luach Hamuktzeh, p. 70 distinguishes between clean and dirty snow; while clean snow is not muktzeh, dirty snow is not useable for any purpose and is therefore muktzeh. Shalmei Yehuda, Muktzeh, perek 13, note 19 suggests that Pri Megadim did not intend his statement as practical halacha, but rather as an explanation of one of the categories of nolad R. Tzvi Pesach Frank (Har Tzvi, Orach Chaim, vol. 1, p. 288) notes that even according to Pri Megadim, the issue of muktzeh would only pertain if the snow fell on Shabbat itself. If the snow fell before Shabbat, even Pri Megadim would agree that it is not muktzeh. Birchat Retzeh (siman 73) and R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat, Teshuvot from R. Auerbach #13) discuss the possibility that snow is considered muktzeh only in a case in which there were no clouds in the sky at the beginning of Shabbat or Yom Tov, so that the possibility of snow did not enter anyone’s mind. This issue may be irrelevant nowadays, when many people learn of the possibility of snowfall from the weather report and therefore expect it even in the absence of clouds. 3 Beitza 2a, s.v. ka. on a Gemara in Massechet Eiruvin4 that since water is absorbed in clouds; it is not considered to be in existence before Shabbat. As such, snow that falls on Shabbat has the status of nolad. Some poskim reject this proof because only the hava amina (initial stage) of the Gemara in Eiruvin assumes that water is absorbed in the clouds. According to the conclusion of the Gemara, the water in the clouds is in constant motion and is thus considered to already exist.5 Many poskim, however, maintain that snow is not muktzeh.6 They cite the Gemara in Massechet Shabbat,7 which states that one may not crush snow or hail on Shabbat in order to cause water to flow from it, but one may place it in a cup or plate in order to benefit from it. The Gemara does not make mention of muktzeh implying that snow may be handled on Shabbat. Orchot Shabbat rejects this proof. He notes that in the time of the Gemara, people would draw water from wells and rivers, and snow would sometimes be used as a water source as well.In contrast, nowadays we use running water and snow is not used in the same capacity; therefore today it would be muktzeh.8 4 Eiruvin 46a. 5 See, for example, Har Tzvi, Tal Harim, Soter #1. 6 See Minchat Shabbat 80:56, quoting Teshuvot HaGeonim, siman 242; Beit Yosef, end of siman 310, quoting R. Tzemach Gaon; Shibbolei Haleket, siman 85; Kaf Hachaim 310:52 and 338:60; Eshel Avraham (Butchach), Mahadura Tinyana, siman 312; and Mishna Berura 338:30 in the name of Zecher Le’Avraham. This is also the opinion of R. Zvi Pesach Frank (Har Tzvi, Tal Harim, Soter #1), R. Moshe Stern, Be’er Moshe 1:20, R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, cited in Shalmei Yehuda, Muktzeh 13:9:19; Orchot Shabbat, vol. 2, ch. 19, nt. 259, Children in Halacha p. 138, and R. Shlomo Zalman Aurebach, cited in Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 16:44 and nt. 110 (see, however, Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat, Teshuvot from R. Auerbach #13). Kli Chemda (Shemot 16:26) discusses whether mon that fell on Shabbat would be muktzeh. This question is merely academic, however, as a double portion fell on Friday and no mon fell on Shabbat at all. 7 Shabbat 51b. 8 Orchot Shabbat, vol. 2, ch. 19, nt. 259. Another source to prove that snow is not muktzeh is from a sugya in Eiruvin 99b.9 The Mishna says that on Shabbat, one may catch water dripping from a gutter pipe within ten tefachim (handbreadths) of the ground. According to Tosafot’s analysis of the Gemara (based on their understanding of Rashi’s opinion),10 the Mishna refers to a case in which the water did not rest on top of the roof; that is, the water came onto the roof on Shabbat. R. Stern infers from here that the water in question is rain water. Ritva writes that it is difficult to explain that this Gemara is only referring to rain water that fell on Shabbat. Rather, it must also be referring to rain that fell before Shabbat.11 Since the Mishna says that one can catch this water, there seems to be no concern for muktzeh with regard to rain that falls on or before Shabbat. Meiri12 and Rashba13 write that one may bring the rain water into the house, further implying that there is no issue of muktzeh. Another proof is the Gemara in Eiruvin 45b,14 which states that rain that falls on Yom Tov has the same techum (walking parameters) as the person who collected it. Rashi explains that since the rain had not fallen before Yom Tov it has no previous boundary and therefore follows the collector.15 This clearly indicates that one may move rain on Shabbat.16 9 This proof is mentioned in Be’er Moshe 1:20. 10 Tosafot, Eiruvin 99b, s.v. lo. 11 Ritva, Eiruvin 99b, s.v. h”g. 12 Meiri, Eiruvin 99b, s.v. v’yesh. 13 Rashba, Avodat Hakodesh Beit Netivot, Sha’ar Shlishi #178. 14 This proof is mentioned in Be’er Moshe 1:20. 15 Rashi, Eiruvin 45b, s.v. harei. 16 Although R. Stern’s proofs are from sugyot concerning rain, most poskim assume that there is no difference between rain and snow regarding muktzeh status; if rain is not muktzeh, snow should not be either. Snowfall occurs in mid air when precipitation enters a cold atmosphere. Because it can easily change back to rain, this is not considered nolad gamur and is therefore not a problem. (See, for example, Machazeh Eliyahu, siman 68:1). R. Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 5:22:37), however, differentiates between rain and snow, writing that the fact that the Gemara in Eiruvin (46a) states that rain moves in the clouds does not apply to snow. Tiltul Min Hatzad If snow is muktzeh, as Pri Megadim maintains, the permissibility of moving the snow may depend on the acceptability of tiltul min hatzad, moving a muktzeh item in an indirect fashion. As an example, Shulchan Aruch states that if one wishes to remove bones from the table, he may pick up the table or board that they are on and shake the bones off.17 Taz writes that a person may also wipe the bones off the table using a knife; since he is not touching the muktzeh item directly, this movement is considered to be min hatzad.18 Mishna Berura quotes this opinion.19 By extension, one would be able to move snow using a shovel, as this act is similar to clearing the table with a knife. Some Achronim disagree with Taz. Shulchan Aruch HaRav writes that using a utensil to move the bones is only permitted in a case in which the bones were already on the utensil. Thus, one may remove the bones by shaking the table on which they lie. However, one may not place the muktzeh item onto another object and then move it. 20 According to Shulchan Aruch HaRav, one would not be able to use a shovel to pick up snow unless the snow was placed on the shovel before Shabbat. Chazon Ish writes that the leniency of tiltul min hatzad is only applicable when the item that one wishes to move is not the muktzeh item. For example, if there is a rock 17 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 308:27. 18 Ibid. 308:18. Some authorities maintain that this leniency of Taz was only meant when moving the object in the irregular fashion (like a knife being used to sweep the bones off of the table). However, using an item to push the muktzeh in the regular fashion was never included in this leniency. See Orchot Shabbat vol. 2 19:247 and footnote 348. Other poskim maintain that there is no difference. See Minchat Asher Shabbat siman 43, Megilat Sefer 45:5, Hilchot Shabbat B’Shabbat vol. 2 27:10 and footnote 27. 19 Mishna Berura 308:115. 20 Shulchan Aruch Harav 308:60, Kuntres Acharon 259:3.

Load more